On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Luca Olivetti wrote:
> Al 21/06/10 17:45, En/na Michael Krufky ha escrit:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Luca Olivetti wrote:
>>>
>>> En/na Michael Krufky ha escrit:
Could somebody please test this patch and confirm that it doesn't
break the
Al 21/06/10 17:45, En/na Michael Krufky ha escrit:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Luca Olivetti wrote:
En/na Michael Krufky ha escrit:
Could somebody please test this patch and confirm that it doesn't
break the af9005 support?
This patch removes the af9005_usb_generic_rw function and uses
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Luca Olivetti wrote:
> En/na Michael Krufky ha escrit:
>>
>> Could somebody please test this patch and confirm that it doesn't
>> break the af9005 support?
>>
>> This patch removes the af9005_usb_generic_rw function and uses the
>> dvb_usb_generic_rw function inste
En/na Michael Krufky ha escrit:
Could somebody please test this patch and confirm that it doesn't
break the af9005 support?
This patch removes the af9005_usb_generic_rw function and uses the
dvb_usb_generic_rw function instead, using
generic_bulk_ctrl_endpoint_response to differentiate between t
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Michael Krufky wrote:
> Could somebody please test this patch and confirm that it doesn't
> break the af9005 support?
>
> This patch removes the af9005_usb_generic_rw function and uses the
> dvb_usb_generic_rw function instead, using
> generic_bulk_ctrl_endpoint_re
Could somebody please test this patch and confirm that it doesn't
break the af9005 support?
This patch removes the af9005_usb_generic_rw function and uses the
dvb_usb_generic_rw function instead, using
generic_bulk_ctrl_endpoint_response to differentiate between the read
pipe and the write pipe.
