On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 08:12:14PM -0700, John Tyner wrote: > > Which brings me to the point of the email (sorry it took so long to get > here, heh). In trying to add the features from mine to the one that got > merged, I'm finding that not only am I removing a lot of debug code and even > some bugs, I'm also having to re-debug my own code in order to add it to the > kernel. This, in my opinion, is a waste of my time since I've already > submitted a working, debugged driver.
Yes, but Joe's was there first, based on the original driver, that's why I accepted his patch. We all end up reworking "already working" code in order to get it accepted. This is just another form of that. > I realize that this sounds like I'm upset that my driver got rejected or > that I'm trying to "take my ball and go home". This is not the case at all. > Rather, I've done all of this work once (and submitted as a completed, > stable, working driver) and don't want to duplicate my own efforts. If > someone else would like to take up the job of trying to merge the two > drivers, I'm happy to give them my code. > > If not, then I ask that we revisit the idea of having both drivers coexist > so that people can see/try the both of them. That is, unless a better idea > is suggested. Could you point out the problems in the existing driver? It sounds like some things would be easy to fix, such as control message allocation for an example. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: viaVerio will pay you up to $1,000 for every account that you consolidate with us. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4749864;7604308;v? http://www.viaverio.com/consolidator/osdn.cfm _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
