On Sunday 25 January 2009, Greg KH wrote: > Ok, I've now applied the 9 patches that David just sent me. Thanks. I thought that was probably the best way to expedite those priority patches. > Trying to figure out the arguments back and forth for the rest of the > musb threads is a total mess, and I'm just going to give up here. That's pretty much what I did. > So, what should I do? Felipe is too busy for musb stuff at the moment > (no fault to him, I totally understand.) So, should I just wait for > David's and/or Felipe's ack on a patch before applying it? Or apply > everything that gets sent to me? I suggest waiting for me or Felipe ... and cc me on any such patches you queue, regardless. I've got a bit more time for this right now, *and* several boards (with different silicon revs, both OMAP and DaVinci) to sanity test with. > We need some way to handle this, as it sure isn't working the > way it is now, any suggestions? One immediate one: anyone with patches they consider ready to merge, please resubmit against 2.6.29-rc2 +nine-patches. Priority for bugfixes that keep 2.6.29 from behaving; please hold any other bits till a bit later (and summarize what they are, as a heads-up). The OMAP tree currently tracks mainline (yay!), and the DaVinci tree is a bit behind that. (It's going to stop tracking the OMAP tree now that MUSB is in mainline.) So to a first approximation, all DaVinci and OMAP MUSB patches should be against mainline, and once they get into your queue (gregkh-02-usb.current or gregkh-04-usb) they're fair game to pre-merge to those trees. I'm going to presume that ADI has some unmerged Blackfin patches. I know that MontaVista, Nokia, and TI all have unmerged patches ... and not necessarily one queue each. Plus there's Felipe's MUSB git tree, at 2.6.28-rc8. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
