Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 31 (ehci, dbgp)
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: 2012-11-02 15:39:33
Also in:
lkml
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:20:27AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
On 02.11.12 at 15:01, Alan Stern [off-list ref] wrote:On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
Alan Stern [off-list ref] 11/01/12 9:39 PM >>>On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
Alan Stern [off-list ref] 11/01/12 4:28 PM >>>Evidently we need to change your new test in drivers/usb/early/ehci-dbgp.c to: #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB_HCD_EHCI) || defined(CONFIG_USB_CHIPIDEA_HOST) Upcoming changes to ehci-hcd will make this unnecessary in 3.8, but for now we need it.Which tells me that the CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT version would have been the better one (and I would favor that over the ugly variant you suggest above).I also suggested IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB), which is no uglier than what you submitted and would also fix this build error. How about using it instead?Yes, that's better. Question then is - updated original patch or incrementalone? Greg will probably want an incremental patch, because the original has already been merged.I actually sent both (the incremental as attachment - I hope that's going to be acceptable to him) in a submission earlier today.Ah, okay, good. Greg, whichever version you take, you can add: Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Thanks for that, as you guessed, I have to take the incremental one as the first is already applied. greg k-h