On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 05:14:54PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Curran, Dominic wrote: > > > > > > I don't see much use for adding this information if it's not even > > > going > > > > > to be included by any file just yet :( > > > > I published this patch now for that somebody can help me later. > > > > > > Ok, but the structures were the easy part :) > > > > > > I'll wait to add this to the tree when there is some code using it. > > > > > > > Greg, I thought that the preferred model for submitting a new driver was > > to provide it in small bits, and not as one bit chunk at the end. > > > > Doesn't a header file qualify as a small bit ? > > > > I've always been a bit confused by what in practice you do want from new > > drivers, so I'm very interested in what you are expecting. > > > > Thanks > > dom > > For that matter, how much in-tree code uses the Wireless USB declarations? > It seems to me that if one is acceptable then the other should be too.
I don't see the wireless USB drivers having a whole header file in the tree that is unused, do you? :) And I've also seen the wireless usb code working, while as this is a header file with no written code at all in existance... thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
