This patch is still required as far as i know. The eciadsl driver doesn't work with the 2.6.4 kernel without that patch. I don't think anybody has tested it with the 2.6.5rc1 kernel. If this is needed i can do it next week-end (not sooner).
Antoine REVERSAT aka Crevetor Le mar 16/03/2004 à 21:56, Olaf Hering a écrit : > On Wed, Feb 18, don wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:22:36PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > > areversat wrote: > > > >I'd like to know how this usb patch is going ? Is there still a lot to > > > >do or will it be ready for 2.6.4 ? We'd like to know. > > > > > > It'd sure help if someone submitted a patch with those revisions... > > > > I'm a bit confused, the changes referenced in areversat's recent > > note are already in. I see them in 2.6.2. > > > > However as you have noted, there is an error in that code that > > needs the following: > > > > --- devio.c.orig Fri Feb 13 11:30:38 2004 > > +++ devio.c Fri Feb 13 11:31:00 2004 > > @@ -862,7 +862,7 @@ > > uurb.number_of_packets = 0; > > if (!(ep_desc = usb_epnum_to_ep_desc(ps->dev, uurb.endpoint))) > > return -ENOENT; > > - interval = ep_desc->bInterval; > > + interval = (1 << (ep_desc->bInterval - 1)); > > if (uurb.buffer_length > 16384) > > return -EINVAL; > > if (!access_ok((uurb.endpoint & USB_DIR_IN) ? VERIFY_WRITE : > > VERIFY_READ, uurb.buffer, uurb.buffer_length)) > > Is this patch still required? > How does the vanilla 2.6.5rc1 work with the eciadsl driver? -- Pour trouver les limites du possible il faut tenter l'impossible.
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=
