On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:43:42PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:34:23PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > The old code registered the hcd even if there were no transceivers > > detected, leading to oopses like this if we try to probe a non-existant > > ULPI: > > Hmm. I'm aware that there was a missing bail in this function, but > actually, I had hardware which didn't properly detect the ULPI chip but > still worked fine. There has been quite some discussion here about that, > and eventually I decided to not make this a hard error as it didn't > really harm. Hmm, so, do you think this patch is stable-material after all? -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
