Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] usb: Add Clear_TT_Buffer support for XHCI
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1904261128380.23806-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
CC:     <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From:   Jim Lin <jilin@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <00107302-c6e4-84a7-ebad-d3125c00c586@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:40:47 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1904261128380.23806-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for review.

Abandon this series of patches.

And will send out another minimized patch later.

Jim


On 2019=E5=B9=B404=E6=9C=8826=E6=97=A5 23:34, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Jim Lin wrote:
>
>> Jim Lin (6):
>>    usb: hub:Extend usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer parameter
>>    usb: isp1760:Adjusted for usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer
>>    usb: fotg210:Adjusted for usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer
>>    usb: ehci: Adjusted for usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer
>>    usb: dwc2: Adjusted for usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer
>>    usb: xhci: Add Clear_TT_Buffer
>>
>>   drivers/usb/core/hub.c            |  5 +++--
>>   drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd_intr.c       |  2 +-
>>   drivers/usb/host/ehci-q.c         |  2 +-
>>   drivers/usb/host/fotg210-hcd.c    |  2 +-
>>   drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c      | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   drivers/usb/host/xhci.c           |  7 +++++++
>>   drivers/usb/host/xhci.h           |  3 +++
>>   drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c |  5 +++--
>>   include/linux/usb/hcd.h           |  2 +-
>>   9 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> This doesn't explain anything.  After reading the patches, I could see
> that patches 2-5 are needed in order to work with patch 1, but I don't
> know why patch 1 was needed in the first place.  It looks like patch 1
> forces callers to add an extra argument containing information that is
> already available, so why is the extra argument needed?
>
> In any case, this is the sort of the thing you should explain to people
> instead of forcing them to figure it out for themselves.
>
> Alan Stern
>
--nvpublic