On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:01:54PM +0800, Wu, Hao wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 04:28:59PM -0700, [email protected] > >wrote: > >> > Hi Arjan, > >> > > >> > These 2 MeeGo patches are for Intel Medfield USB Gadget driver support. > >> > They are made against 35. > >> > > >> > 001 usb gadget: add Intel ACM composite gadget for Medfield > >> > 002 usb gadget: add support for Medfield > >> > > >> > >> I can shed a little more light on how this could be used. This driver > >> provides separate tty ports to allow separation of distinct data channels > >> out of a device in the field through the micro-USB port to a diagnostic > >> tool hooked up to that device via that micro-USB port. So for example, > >> one of the tty ports could be a command-and-control connection to the > >> device, whereas another tty port could be used in conjunction with the > >> n_tracerouter and n_tracesink ldiscs to extract modem debug data out of > >> the system. > > > >But why does this have to be a platform specific gadget? What's wrong > >with the acm gadget support we already have in the main kernel tree? > >Why duplicate that work here? > > That's true, mainline kernel has already support it with gadget/serial.c.
"already"? It's always been there. > So from this point, patch 1 for ACM is useless. Please ignore that 001 patch. I'm kind of curious as to why it was ever written in the first place? What was the development process that happened that determined it was needed? Will this process change in the future for other projects to prevent this from happening? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Meego-kernel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-kernel
