On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Martin Fuzzey wrote: > David Brownell wrote: > > Martin ... I lost track of this. Is some version of this patch in > > Greg's queue? If not, there should be. It'd help shake out bugs > > appearing in some newer HCDs. > > > > > No it's not currently in Greg's queue. > > There was some discussion between you, Alan and myself > about whether it is better to add extra tests, add extra checks > to the existing tests or add parameters to the existing tests. > > I think Greg is waiting for a consensus on this before taking > the patch. > > > > Similar comment for peripheral drivers, with gadget zero... > > > > p.s. ISTR you also had some thoughts about getting the test script > > into the kernel tree too. Ideally we'd have not just a bash script > > but also the operator instructions ... but for now, I'd be glad just > > to see drivers that demand word alignment start to fail in lab tests > > rather than in the field... > > > > > Yes my opinion is that we should: > 1) Add extra explicit tests for alignment problems (what this patch does) > > I think this is superior to merging with the existing tests because it > will give a clear indication of where the problem lies (one test will > pass and another will fail if HCDs require alignment) > > 2) Put the test script in the kernel tree (to make it more likely that the > new tests are called) > > 3) Agreed that some documentation / instructions would be good. > However I'm not sure what this should really contain and the > relation to the materiel available at http://www.linux-usb.org/usbtest/ > > If we agree about this I'll submit patches for 1 + 2. I think 3 needs > more discussion. 1+2 is okay with me. I don't really object to having new tests; I merely wanted to point out some alternatives. Alan Stern -- 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
