Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 01:18:27PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: >>> fusbh200 and fotg210 are very similar. The initial idea was to consolidate >>> both drivers but I'm afraid fusbh200 is not being used. >>> >>> This patch remove the fusbh200 source code, update Kconfig and two >>> Makefiles. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> after all this work on these previous patches, you just remove fusbh200 ? >> >> that's a bit odd. Are you sure there are no users for this driver ? It has been >> in tree since 2013. > I don't know about users, but I could not find devices using fusbh200. > The closest I got was: > > http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Digital-Video-Langzeit-Recorder-H264-DVR-3G-4-Kanal-/370525106495 > > But it only says: Main Processor: Faraday. I don't know which usb host > controller it uses. > > The idea of deleting fusbh200 came from contacting the driver authors. > I was asking where to find hw for testing, and I was told that the > fusbh200 driver can be deleted. Also at least Fedora and Ubuntu build > modules for these host controllers by default. If fusbh200 and fotg210 > are only available integrated into SOCs, maybe building the modules by > default for x86 is not a good idea. But if there are users I'll be > happy to continue the integration work, even better if I find hardware > for testing. fair enough, if can be deleted it's fine... > John Feng-Hsin Chiang, can you confirm that from your side the > fusbh200 driver can be deleted? ... but let's get this confirmation. > For the patches I sent, 10 of 14 are for fotg210 which I'll fix and resend. cool, thanks -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
