From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6718352031840328052==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] udev rules update Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:20:39 +0100 Message-ID: <1322569239.29909.61.camel@aeonflux> In-Reply-To: <1322569281-10908-1-git-send-email-philippe.nunes@linux.intel.com> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============6718352031840328052== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Philippe, > This set of patches have been sent this summer but not upstreamed. > As few bugs have been opened which could be fixed by those patches, I res= end them > for review. > = > - For Speedup dongles, the logic in udevng is to assign the modem port on= the > latest interface. This is not true for SpeedUp SU-7300U (BUG #23168) and = > SpeedUp 9800 (BUG #23167). So, I added 2 specific rules for both dongles. > = > - For dongle ZTE MF190, 6 interfaces are present and we shall use the int= erface > ttyUSB4 for modem channel. The logic in udevng is to assign the modem cha= nnel > on the latest interface. To not break the support of ZTE modems with 5 = > interfaces (which are using the 4th one for PPP, like K3570), I can't ext= end > the current logic to take into account the ttyUSB4. So, I added a specifi= c rule > for ZTE MF190. > I added also a specific rule for the dongle ZTE MF668 as the modem channe= l is > not on the latest interface (BUG #23683) why is all this reasoning here and not in the commit message of the patches? I expect that every patch has a proper commit message that explains its goal. Just a non-meaningful subject line is not enough. Regards Marcel --===============6718352031840328052==--