On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 09:11:42AM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On 12/15/2010 10:47 PM, Greg KH wrote: > >>> On 12/8/2010 1:37 PM, Pavankumar Kondeti wrote: > >>>> > > > OTG driver takes care of putting hardware into low power mode. Hence > >>>> > > > make peripheral and host devices as children of OTG device and let > >>>> > > > runtime PM takes care of notifying peripheral and host state to > >>>> > > > OTG device. VBUS power up and shutdown routines are implemented by > >>>> > > > modem processor. As RPC infrastructure is not available, configure > >>>> > > > USB in peripheral only mode. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > Signed-off-by: Pavankumar Kondeti <pkondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > > > --- > >>>> > > > This patch depends on [PATCH V3 00/11] Add MSM USB controller driver > >>>> > > > patch series which is under review. > >>> > > > >>> > > USB driver patches are taken into Greg KH usb-next tree. Is it possible > >>> > > to include this patch for 2.6.38? > >> > > >> > I don't control Greg's tree, so I don't know what his policies are > >> > regarding patch acceptance .. > > They are like any other patch acceptance rules, what specifically is the > > issue here? > > The board support patches ( [PATCH 1/2] MSM: Add USB suport for QSD8x50) > are dependent on USB OTG driver patches ([PATCH V3 00/11] Add MSM USB > controller driver). The USB OTG driver patches are in your > usb-next tree. Where should board support patches go? MSM tree/ USB tree? MSM tree would make sense, right? thanks, greg k-h -- 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
