Re: [U-Boot] [patch 0/2] Some more USB-OHCI bugfixes [V2]

2008-10-29 Thread Markus Klotzbücher
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:07:38AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Markus, > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > > > Both patches passed my usual sequoia regression test, so I added both > > to the USB custodian repository. > > > > If nobody reports any regressions I intend to sen

Re: [U-Boot] [patch 0/2] Some more USB-OHCI bugfixes [V2]

2008-10-28 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Markus, In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > Both patches passed my usual sequoia regression test, so I added both > to the USB custodian repository. > > If nobody reports any regressions I intend to send Wolfgang a pull > request in upcoming merge window. What's the state about t

Re: [U-Boot] [patch 0/2] Some more USB-OHCI bugfixes [V2]

2008-10-14 Thread Markus Klotzbücher
Dear Remy, On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:23:20AM +0200, Remy Bohmer wrote: > This is version 2 of these series! > Only patch 1 of 2 has changed, some pedantic Coding Style issues updated that > were not detected by Linux/scripts/checkpatch.pl. > > The USB OHCI init procedure sets the maximum message

[U-Boot] [patch 0/2] Some more USB-OHCI bugfixes [V2]

2008-10-10 Thread Remy Bohmer
This is version 2 of these series! Only patch 1 of 2 has changed, some pedantic Coding Style issues updated that were not detected by Linux/scripts/checkpatch.pl. The USB OHCI init procedure sets the maximum message length the wrong way. A max of 64 bits should not be done by writing '64' in maxpa