Hello. On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 12:56, Tormod Volden wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Stefan Schmidt > <ste...@datenfreihafen.org> wrote: > > Hello. > > > > On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 13:29, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > >> On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 21:52, Tormod Volden wrote: > >> > > >> > The code for supporting ST Microelectronics DFU extensions (DfuSe) is > >> > now ready. It can be found in the dfuse-libusb-1.0 branch of > >> > https://gitorious.org/~tormod/unofficial-clones/dfuse-dfu-util - I > >> > recommend fetching it and viewing it with for instance "git instaweb" > >> > instead of reading the commits on gitorious because they list the > >> > commits out of commit order (I think they appear by author date and I > >> > did some rebasing). > >> > >> Many many thanks for this. I will review this in the week after the > >> 20th. I'm finishing my diploma thesis right now and barely have spare > >> cycles to read mail. But be assured that this and your other patches > >> are on my high priority list after the thesis drop off. :) > > > > Its done and I finally have time at hand again. :) > > Congratulations for having your thesis done :)
Thnaks :) > > I'm going to review and test your patches the next days. I would be > > grateful if you could point out any missing patches I may have missed. > > What I have scheduled for review right now is the patch adding 1.1 > > features and the patchset for Dfuse support. Anything else I'm > > missing? > > Right, there is the DfuSe support in the dfuse-libusb-1.0 branch > (updated since), then there are three patches in master-patches > branch: > > main: Make descriptor helper functions more generic > > dfu-util.1: --device option never needed hex prefix > > main: Move DFU state transition blocks together OK, all three are already in my local repo and I will test them later today or tomorrow. They rae fine froma review point of view. Only testing from my side is missing. > As I wrote on the list, this last one above could need some testing. I > do not know if there was a reason for this status check block to be > placed after the descriptor retrieval and is necessary for some device > or it is just the code that grew like that. IMO if some device need it > this order, it needs to be documented so we do not carry cargo cult. > Therefore I will suggest to go on and applying it if there is no > problem with the devices that we can test, and then deal with any bug > report if it comes along. Thats fine with me. > Then finally the DFU 1.1 patch which I haven't pushed yet but was > posted on the ML. I picked that one from the ml as well. Will be in the testing lot like the others above. For the DfuSe branch I need a bit more toime to review it and make my mind up on the best approach for merging it. Hopefully still this week though. regards Stefan Schmidt _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.openmoko.org https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
