>> The arm changes should be split into clean, logical >> chunks and placed in the ARM patch system.
> By arm changes do you mean just the DMA stuff or the OHCI SA1111 changes > as well? rmk and Linus and the other maintainers require patches to be separated into small, discrete pieces. It makes it easier to evaluate and digest them. One logical piece is the "new" (i.e. patch #1255) dma code backported for 2.4.x. That code should be placed in the ARM patch system, separate from and before any driver changes. >> The 2.4.x dma workaround scribbles memory so it >> should be replaced with my code asap. > Do you mean ? > [my code = your patch 1255 as modified by me to patch 2.4.19-rmk2] Yes, patch #1255. >> I think your Makefiles changes need to be cleaned up >> and simplified > I assume your greatest distaste is for the use of 'findstring' in > drivers/usb/Makefile (line breaks added to fit mail message): Yes. >> Those changes alone might make usb-ohci behave. >> But I'm not convinced of that. > Care to elaborate? With the proper SA-1111 dma bounce buffering, usb-ohci might work. I won't speculate. The only thing to do is try it and see what happens. -ch mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
