On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > Xiaofan Chen wrote: >> > (read the entire thread) > > I really meant this. >
Yes I read the whold thread. >> > has not been included in Linus' git tree. I assume because it was >> > badly formatted. >> >> I think this is not because it was badly formatted. It seems to me >> that there are different opinions whether to fix the kernel >> (reverse the patch) or fix the client program. It seems to me that >> it is not possible to make all users happy just by reversing the >> patch committed. > > See http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=128276513507083 and the two > following messages in the thread, which come just a message or two > after the ones you linked to. > > The patch introduces behavior for FTDI chips which is different from > how other serial ports work. Greg requested a patch and one was sent, > but in an invalid format unsuitable for inclusion. I have not checked with the mailing list to see if that is the reason or not. But my understanding is that it is difficult for Greg KH to apply the patch without the ack from the original author of the patch (Daniel Mack). Moreover Alan Stern also does not ack the patch. > >> So for the OP, the best option is to reverse the kernel to >> 2.6.32-24. > > I agree completely! Until this is fixed upstream or by the > distribution, the solution is no doubt to downgrade the kernel. > So we have the same conclusion. ;-) So the difference is just the perception of why the patch is not queued. -- Xiaofan _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
