On Friday, April 11, 2014 at 01:43:47 PM, Mateusz Zalega wrote: > 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.
Did I say anything about "USBCNT_DONTKNOW" above please? Sorry, I also lost context of this thread as it was dead for more than a month. > > 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. Please elaborate why can the fixes not go first and features second. Thank you. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
