Hey Dan, Dinh,
> > [resend]: previous reply didn't include Matthijs
> >
>
> He sets his Mail-Followup-To: so that we don't CC him on replies. I
> assume it's deliberate because he only wants the copy from the mailing
> list?
Exactly, I just set that for whatever mailing list I subscribe to.
How
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:26:29AM -0500, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
> [resend]: previous reply didn't include Matthijs
>
He sets his Mail-Followup-To: so that we don't CC him on replies. I
assume it's deliberate because he only wants the copy from the mailing
list?
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubs
On 10/1/13 6:29 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:22:35AM -0500, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
Hi Matthijs,
On 10/1/13 6:08 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
Hi Dinh,
Somehow I assumed that was fixed by the hardware, but I see now that you
are right. Yes, making the definition larger is
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:22:35AM -0500, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Matthijs,
>
> On 10/1/13 6:08 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> >Hi Dinh,
> >
> >>>Somehow I assumed that was fixed by the hardware, but I see now that you
> >>>are right. Yes, making the definition larger is better than moving the
>
Hi Matthijs,
On 10/1/13 6:08 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
Hi Dinh,
Somehow I assumed that was fixed by the hardware, but I see now that you
are right. Yes, making the definition larger is better than moving the
+ 1.
This was my original fix to the problem, but I thought that it would
be conf
Hi Matthijs,
On 10/1/13 6:08 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
Hi Dinh,
Somehow I assumed that was fixed by the hardware, but I see now that you
are right. Yes, making the definition larger is better than moving the
+ 1.
This was my original fix to the problem, but I thought that it would
be conf
Hi Dinh,
> >Somehow I assumed that was fixed by the hardware, but I see now that you
> >are right. Yes, making the definition larger is better than moving the
> >+ 1.
> This was my original fix to the problem, but I thought that it would
> be confusing when reading the code. I also thought about
Hi Dan,
On 10/1/13 3:23 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:05:17AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:21:28AM +, Paul Zimmerman wrote:
From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpen...@oracle.c
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:05:17AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:21:28AM +, Paul Zimmerman wrote:
> > > > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpen...@oracle.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:05:17AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:21:28AM +, Paul Zimmerman wrote:
> > > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpen...@oracle.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 6:09 PM
> > >
> > > Yeah. I guess it's fine... I was going to sugges
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:21:28AM +, Paul Zimmerman wrote:
> > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpen...@oracle.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 6:09 PM
> >
> > Yeah. I guess it's fine... I was going to suggest adding the + 1 in a
> > different place but actually it doesn't matter.
> From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpen...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 6:09 PM
>
> Yeah. I guess it's fine... I was going to suggest adding the + 1 in a
> different place but actually it doesn't matter.
>
> The key to understanding dwc2_set_param_host_channels() is that the
Yeah. I guess it's fine... I was going to suggest adding the + 1 in a
different place but actually it doesn't matter.
The key to understanding dwc2_set_param_host_channels() is that the
"val" parameter is always -1. That means it always returns -EINVAL and
the caller jumbles the error code in w
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 01:25 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 05:05:23PM -0500, dingu...@altera.com wrote:
> > From: Dinh Nguyen
> >
> > The variable host_channels of dwc2_hw_params struct is only 4-bits. Adding
> > a 1 to a 0xf results in a 0 for host_channels. Thus, the driv
Hi Dan,
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 01:25 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 05:05:23PM -0500, dingu...@altera.com wrote:
> > From: Dinh Nguyen
> >
> > The variable host_channels of dwc2_hw_params struct is only 4-bits. Adding
> > a 1 to a 0xf results in a 0 for host_channels. Thus,
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 05:05:23PM -0500, dingu...@altera.com wrote:
> From: Dinh Nguyen
>
> The variable host_channels of dwc2_hw_params struct is only 4-bits. Adding
> a 1 to a 0xf results in a 0 for host_channels. Thus, the driver was always
> thinking it had 0 host channels.
>
> Represent th
16 matches
Mail list logo
