Hi, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:33:11AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 10:21:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > This also fixes the error path: If the second device fails to register > > > we never remove the first one. > > > This is compile-tested only. I don't see any difference between those > > > two. Maybe we should just use one name instead? > > > > > > Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Hi Felipe and Sebastian, > > > ACKs ? > > > Hmm... > > In this case, proper platform_driver_unregister should be added if need to > fix the error path. > > I think, since the S3C2410 H/W fifo_size of the EP[1~4] is different with > S3C2440, we need to handle it now. Of course the USB 1.1 bulk max packet is this is simple. You can use the driver_data field of the platform_device_id to pass such details. But this was never the purpose of this patch. $SUBJECT is only removing the unnecessary extra platform_driver. > So it seems we don't need to handle different fifo_size but if required, to > add its handling looks better. So, ACK or no ACK ? :-p I really didn't get your point :-p -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
