On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:04:56PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 08/31/2012 11:29 AM, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: > >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. > > And you realize that ccg remains unused right now from its biggest and > probably only user called Android? So why should we keep it? I second that, if there are no users for that ccg gadget, we need not keep in tree. Specially since we will be providing a more stable userland ABI which will solve the same problems ccg tries (though wrongly) to solve. Unless it can be proven that ccg has active users, we should get rid of it for now before someone starts using it and we need to maintain the ABI for the next 10 years. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
