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.
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.
btw. please keep custodians on CC of the respective patches.
OK
Regards,