From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753718AbaEOQHt (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 12:07:49 -0400 Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:35688 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751614AbaEOQHr (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 12:07:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:07:35 -0500 From: Felipe Balbi To: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado CC: , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v4] usb: gadget: net2280: Add support for PLX USB338X Message-ID: <20140515160735.GF7360@saruman.home> Reply-To: References: <1400156926-11100-1-git-send-email-ricardo.ribalda@gmail.com> <1400156926-11100-2-git-send-email-ricardo.ribalda@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vA66WO2vHvL/CRSR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1400156926-11100-2-git-send-email-ricardo.ribalda@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --vA66WO2vHvL/CRSR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 02:28:46PM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote: > This patch adds support for the PLX USB3380 and USB3382. >=20 > This driver is based on the driver from the manufacturer. >=20 > Since USB338X is register compatible with NET2280, I thought that it > would be better to include this hardware into net2280 driver. >=20 > Manufacturer's driver only supported the USB33X, did not follow the > Kernel Style and contain some trivial errors. This patch has tried to > address this issues. >=20 > This patch has only been tested on USB338x hardware, but the merge has > been done trying to not affect the behaviour of NET2280. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado anybody with net2280, please give me a Tested-by so I'm sure there are no regressions caused by this patch. One question though, is it worth to use the legacy mode just to get register compatibility ? What are the drawbacks of using legacy mode ? Is any feature missing when we use legacy mode ? cheers --=20 balbi --vA66WO2vHvL/CRSR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTdOZHAAoJEIaOsuA1yqREqP0P/iN3/EWHS8XpxUKNAk7WqG9a X3shjZJqNm2FI4BTfRzkKDWXOClV6NBX9Dje7hkOpdrLF3mhjcuT+3bFWJc+QJ3m /AnqfWTzru7XpsAFtgCu2V3YbsM9ouetR+A/NC3MRhgNk8RbbgSyM+3nrj+UpLe8 hWhCPbFZ7VNp11PiruhV8LtW4t78DjmBD4+2zYiMGhUo/i9mvZIhH3S13UlEP85k 9xIMvPimjZ7UjLtioJxCDAX/U5J3rO1TXhFqmRZk+94Q1bESs9eN09WBRjxKBk0v 3D4DexJs7k6JZUyttjbWtJ4Os8SfOzY8qeF7PRKpRUTDalRoIM9RozHLwvXnmeXg wls0xPL237AN3wRFsSwIhSOySM4BZZolBHfR4YPbzANK6q2AuLL+mqCiJLlwb6S9 XwmoM3ti7CYQSjCAmenBHVQm3edZGw4ROvHkLFYAc0h+jtX0Pmbyj+5+K/sFp+R6 oEK/e3qHhgQp/sxEm1OP/Ij9G5sG+CTM3+8/VuVzw9FDUtkaeLaMseEXGSWU7S3i HHr7eZLWMOHZ1lisj3H6A6owaCttUlvbcXM0ZOVWcJ7gVHFXgMJDC4t9c6kfssSe nAnKv3R3UsCl43N9KcnUZYkSILzG+fcCO+HUCggg1WNSbVa/q3J0uMDufj6RLaHS /wsSWv7X88ukdz3Vhwa7 =/hpW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vA66WO2vHvL/CRSR--