musb for davinci

[Alexander Holler]

Hello,

may I ask what's the deal with drivers/usb/musb/davinci.c and why it
depends on BROKEN?

I've just enabled it here and it compiles and seems to work.

I haven't tested it thoroughly, but when I compare it with other (still
broken) drivers, I don't really see a reason to hide it by letting it
depend on BROKEN.

And at least the comment of the commit which has hidden it (787f56),
isn't completely true anymore. The driver doesn't include <mach/*>, at
least I don't see such an include.

Regards,

Alexander Holler

[Christian Riesch]

Hi Alexander,

--On March 09, 2014 20:58 +0100 Alexander Holler <holler at ahsoftware.de>

Post by Alexander Holler
Hello,
may I ask what's the deal with drivers/usb/musb/davinci.c and why it
depends on BROKEN?
I've just enabled it here and it compiles and seems to work.

I noticed the same for drivers/usb/musb/da8xx.c which was marked BROKEN by
the same patch. It works for me, so I think the BROKEN should be removed.

I posted a patch for this, see [1].

Regards, Christian

[1] http://marc.info/?t=139402222600001&r=1&w=2

Post by Alexander Holler
I haven't tested it thoroughly, but when I compare it with other (still
broken) drivers, I don't really see a reason to hide it by letting it
depend on BROKEN.
And at least the comment of the commit which has hidden it (787f56),
isn't completely true anymore. The driver doesn't include <mach/*>, at
least I don't see such an include.
Regards,
Alexander Holler

[Alexander Holler]

Post by Christian Riesch
Hi Alexander,
--On March 09, 2014 20:58 +0100 Alexander Holler <holler at ahsoftware.de>

Post by Alexander Holler
Hello,
may I ask what's the deal with drivers/usb/musb/davinci.c and why it
depends on BROKEN?
I've just enabled it here and it compiles and seems to work.

I noticed the same for drivers/usb/musb/da8xx.c which was marked BROKEN
by the same patch. It works for me, so I think the BROKEN should be
removed.
I posted a patch for this, see [1].
Regards, Christian
[1] http://marc.info/?t=139402222600001&r=1&w=2

The answer to that is just what I've expected and why I haven't posted a
patch.

Post by Christian Riesch

Post by Alexander Holler
I haven't tested it thoroughly, but when I compare it with other (still
broken) drivers, I don't really see a reason to hide it by letting it
depend on BROKEN.
And at least the comment of the commit which has hidden it (787f56),
isn't completely true anymore. The driver doesn't include <mach/*>, at
least I don't see such an include.
Regards,
Alexander Holler