On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 10:17:37AM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > Bin Liu <b-liu@xxxxxx> writes: > > Hi Felipe, > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:47:52PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> Sorry for the patch bomb, but I wanted to make sure everyoby knows which > >> patches are already queued up for the next window. They are still > >> sitting in my testing/next branch, so I can still change any of them. > >> > >> Please make sure to go through each one of them. This very branch has > >> been tested on Intel SKL and I couldn't find any problems so far. > > > > It seems you missed my comments in the RFC set, basically the set breaks > > MUSB and other controllers. > > Okay, I'll go look for the original comments. I also commented in the RFC for two more issues. - some udc drivers use 0-based mult, but the new usb_endpoint_maxp_mult() makes it 1-based. - some udc drivers keeps bit 11 & 12 when calling the old usb_endpoint_maxp(), but the new version masked bit 11 & 12 already. And here is my comment in RFC/PATCH 01/45. " It seems the instances which use 1 based value is less than those use 0 based. To me it seems make sense to just return 0 based value here. Some controllers like musb writes the 0 based value to a register. " Regards, -Bin. -- 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
