I am not sure, whether you will find many people who just joined
the mailing list, then read the source and right away fixed a
non-trivial kernel driver. Especially if "fix" does not mean a
simple bug fix, but a "bring feature up to speed" type fix.
So we basically have two options:
1. octeon/USB3 is actively being worked on, then I can definitely
offer code reviews, testing and implementation of small but
helpful features. Since these tasks can be offloaded with
minimal effort&risk by your core devs, no "leeching" is possible.
2. Nobody works on octeon/USB3 right now, in this case we can
endure another year of "waiting for superhero" with no usable
USB on octeon, or we try to salvage the situation for now and
resort to a feature set that's known to work and does not
affect performance in any significant way.
Given the traffic in this thread (or lack thereof from other devs),
I tend to believe, that (2) is the case, and therefore stand by my
suggestion to revert USB3 to USB2 on octeon.
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 09:32 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Rudolf Leitgeb <rudolf.leit...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > If one of your vast pool of experienced kernel developers
> > accepts my offer for help, and if this effort benefits platforms
> > that have the actual hmpft to handle USB3 data loads, then my
> > offer for help still stands.
>
> That is a dishonest "offer for help" when all you've done is write
> emails, rather what you are doing is requesting for someone else to
> "help
> you learn to fix the problem", but been around this block before and
> what you actually want is someone to show up, you'll act like you are
> learning and hope they fix it themselves.
>
> The source is available, so shut up and go read it. But instead
> you're
> still replying to email.
>
> You are not a new type of person, people like you HINTING that
> someone
> else fix your problem are very common.
>
