On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 04:33:45PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi Greg, > > here's the pull request for USB Gadget and MUSB. > > I just tested these changes with MUSB and thus far > everything seems ok. I had a few last minute issues > with MUSB but they are fixed on this pull request. > > Like noted before on the announcement I made [1] we > have one small known regression with MUSB regarding > a module parameter which shouldn't really exist. I don't like having known problems like this. Why do we now have to have a module parameter where we didn't before? And who is going to properly set that thing? > This regression will be patched during the -rc cycle, Why not "patch" it now? > but will only be properly fixed on the 3.2 merge window > because it, again, requires a big re-work of how MUSB > works (basically we need to change how FIFO space is > allocated and how endpoints are setup). Ok, but adding a known problem isn't acceptable. 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
