On 04/03/14 10:52, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> Acked-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@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, -- Mateusz Zalega Samsung R&D Institute Poland _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
