On Friday, April 11, 2014 at 01:43:47 PM, Mateusz Zalega wrote:
On 04/03/14 10:52, Marek Vasut wrote:
Acked-by: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com
I suggest this goes for -next. Do you agree?
I'm fine with this code going to -next. Thanks in advance.
Hm, actually, I see we have open issues with the 04/13 V2 patch (why don't you have default __weak usb_cable_detection() implementation instead of another #ifdef ?).
Existing code relied on boolean value returned from usb_cable_connected(), but there was no way to signal that it's impossible to tell whether cable is connected or not. If you prefer an enum with USBCNT_DONTKNOW as a return value, make a decision.
Did I say anything about "USBCNT_DONTKNOW" above please?
Sorry, I also lost context of this thread as it was dead for more than a month.
The whole patchset is a mix of completely unrelated things which should go through different trees. Can the patchset be reordered/split in some reasonable chunks ? There are fixes which should go in immediatelly and then features which should go in for -next.
Not exactly unrelated, most of it should be applied in this particular order. It would be less chaotic had it been accepted in one piece.
Please elaborate why can the fixes not go first and features second. Thank you.
Best regards, Marek Vasut