On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:35 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: <snip> > > Okay. Dear ccg gadget submitter: Do you still need that code in staging > tree or is it okay if it gets removed? Dear Sebastian, Thank you for asking for my opinion. I would like to say that we need ccg in the tree. It seems that the big change with converting to configfs will not happen within the next two kernel releases, and we still don't know the new framework will look like and work - my first patch with "USB gadget - configfs" https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/21/154 contained only mass storage, and there are over a dozen functions or so. It will take time before things are fully settled. So I suggest we try making ccg in sync with your latest changes and reconsider keeping/removing it after the full process of gadget's transition to configfs is completed. Thank you, Andrzej > > The current composite rework resulted in a copy of composite.c and headers > since it is hard to fix. I'm not yet sure what happens when I start to > remove the remaining "#include <dot.c>" statements. > You need to convert to configfs which will change your userland interface. > Is there a reason to keep this in tree? > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Sebastian -- 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
