From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0963481789906464648==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Philippe Nunes Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] udev rules update Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:51:38 +0100 Message-ID: <4ED4F17A.2080903@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1322569239.29909.61.camel@aeonflux> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============0963481789906464648== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Marcel, On 11/29/2011 01:20 PM, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > 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 re= send them >> for review. >> >> - For Speedup dongles, the logic in udevng is to assign the modem port o= n 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 in= terface >> ttyUSB4 for modem channel. The logic in udevng is to assign the modem ch= annel >> 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 ex= tend >> the current logic to take into account the ttyUSB4. So, I added a specif= ic rule >> for ZTE MF190. >> I added also a specific rule for the dongle ZTE MF668 as the modem chann= el 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. Yes, you're right, I should move this explanation in the commit = messages. Before, sending a new set of patches accordingly, I would like = to raise an issue regarding the patches for ofono.rules: Your commit "build: do not install ofono.rules anymore" regarding = Makefile.am makes none effective my proposed changes in ofono rules. Could you explain why the file ofono.rules is not installed anymore = whereas we are still supposed to consider some specific properties = exposed by this file? Thanks, Regards, Philippe. --===============0963481789906464648==--