Hi,
On 9 November 2015 at 09:54, Simon Glass wrote:
>
> Hi Hans,
>
> On 9 November 2015 at 00:14, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On 09-11-15 07:47, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>
> >> There was quite a bit of discussion about the change that required the
> >> unbinding of USB devices for th
Hi Hans,
On 9 November 2015 at 00:14, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 09-11-15 07:47, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> There was quite a bit of discussion about the change that required the
>> unbinding of USB devices for the subsystem to function correctly. E.g.
>>
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.or
On Monday, November 09, 2015 at 07:47:42 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> There was quite a bit of discussion about the change that required the
> unbinding of USB devices for the subsystem to function correctly. E.g.
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/485637/
>
> The key issue is the usb_get_dev_ind
Hi Simon,
On 09-11-15 07:47, Simon Glass wrote:
There was quite a bit of discussion about the change that required the
unbinding of USB devices for the subsystem to function correctly. E.g.
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/485637/
The key issue is the usb_get_dev_index() function which is no
There was quite a bit of discussion about the change that required the
unbinding of USB devices for the subsystem to function correctly. E.g.
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/485637/
The key issue is the usb_get_dev_index() function which is not a good API
for driver model. We can drop use of t
5 matches
Mail list logo
