netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: fix port mapping for ZTE MF290 modem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <70fa0bcd10a8ef67d186da27a7c6a327b0b3e2cd.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 09:15:06 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Lech Perczak <lech.perczak@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: fix port mapping for ZTE MF290 modem

On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 14:06 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:58:56AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 11:49 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2023-11-18 at 00:19 +0100, Lech Perczak wrote:
> > > > This modem is used iside ZTE MF28D LTE CPE router. It can already
> > > > establish PPP connections. This series attempts to adjust its
> > > > configuration to properly support QMI interface which is available and
> > > > preferred over that. This is a part of effort to get the device
> > > > supported b OpenWrt.
> > > > 
> > > > Lech Perczak (2):
> > > >   usb: serial: option: don't claim interface 4 for ZTE MF290
> > > >   net: usb: qmi_wwan: claim interface 4 for ZTE MF290
> > > 
> > > It looks like patch 1 targets the usb-serial tree, patch 2 targets the
> > > netdev tree and there no dependencies between them.
> > 
> > Sorry, ENOCOFFEE here. I see the inter-dependency now. I guess it's
> > better to pull both patches via the same tree.
> > 
> > @Johan: do you have any preferences? We don't see changes on 
> > qmi_wwan.c too often, hopefully we should not hit conflicts up to the
> > next RC.
> 
> It should be fine to take these through the two trees, respectively, as
> we usually do.

Fine by me: I'll take patch 2/2 only.

Cheers,

Paolo