Am 16.05.2011 10:33, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws writes:
On 05/13/2011 11:36 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
When Gerd qdevified USB, he kept legacy -usbdevice working (commit
0958b4cc...). What about new USB devices? Should they get a legacy
syntax, too?
On 05/13/11 18:47, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/13/2011 11:36 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
When Gerd qdevified USB, he kept legacy -usbdevice working (commit
0958b4cc...). What about new USB devices? Should they get a legacy
syntax, too?
Any reason to do that? We already have a number of
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws writes:
On 05/13/2011 11:36 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
When Gerd qdevified USB, he kept legacy -usbdevice working (commit
0958b4cc...). What about new USB devices? Should they get a legacy
syntax, too?
The only existing new device is usb-ccid, and
When Gerd qdevified USB, he kept legacy -usbdevice working (commit
0958b4cc...). What about new USB devices? Should they get a legacy
syntax, too?
The only existing new device is usb-ccid, and it got one in commit
36707144.
On 05/13/2011 11:36 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
When Gerd qdevified USB, he kept legacy -usbdevice working (commit
0958b4cc...). What about new USB devices? Should they get a legacy
syntax, too?
The only existing new device is usb-ccid, and it got one in commit
36707144.
What keeps