On 03/20/2018 04:34 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 03/20/2018 02:36 AM, Bin Meng wrote: >> Hi Marek, >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>> On 03/19/2018 04:17 AM, Bin Meng wrote: >>>> Hi Marek, >>>> >>>> The following changes since commit >>>> 958ad42b77be9d9a69f059066622ef0c15c603ee: >>>> >>>> usb: dwc2: Replace printf, pr_err by dev_info, dev_err (2018-03-19 >>>> 11:03:46 +0800) >>>> >>>> are available in the git repository at: >>>> >>>> git://git.denx.de/u-boot-usb.git topic-xhci >>>> >>>> for you to fetch changes up to 24b36b94c661ddbcb8d211a33ed4055178208211: >>>> >>>> usb: xhci: remove superfluous assignment (2018-03-19 11:09:10 +0800) >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Heinrich Schuchardt (4): >>>> usb: xhci-exynos5: correct error checking >>>> usb: xhci-keystone: remove superfluous assignment >>>> usb: xhci-ring: remove superfluous assignment >>>> usb: xhci: remove superfluous assignment >>>> >>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-exynos5.c | 2 +- >>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-keystone.c | 4 ++-- >>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 2 +- >>>> drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 4 ++-- >>> >>> I believe all of those patches were completely untested and should first >>> be applied to Linux and then backported, so I won't take this PR. >> >> Why do we require U-Boot driver fixes to be firstly applied to Linux, >> then backported? Some of them was ported from Linux before, but as >> time goes I don't think they are a 100% match now. Besides, these 4 >> fixes are really obvious. >> >> Regards, >> Bin >> > > > Hello Marek, > > I fully understand your point that you want patches first to go > upstream. Unfortunately for these 4 patches the patched functions do not > exist in Linux drivers/usb. So I am not able to upstream any of these. > > Out of the four patches three are just eliminating a superfluous > assignment. If you say eliminating this is not worth the effort and > risk, I am fine with it. > > "usb: xhci-exynos5: correct error checking" > https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-March/323104.html > points to a real inconsistency inside the coding reading the device > tree. I must admit I do not have the right board for testing. > > drivers/usb/host/ehci-exynos.c has the same problem and should also be > fixed.
My other concern about this flurry of automated patches is that they were not tested at all, right ? CFR my reply to the faraday hci patch for example. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
