> From: Felipe Balbi [mailto:felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 1:13 PM > To: ext Gupta, Ajay Kumar > Cc: Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki); ext Giuseppe GORGOGLIONE; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB-MUSB: data not sent to TX FIFO > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 01:24:17PM +0100, Ajay Kumar Gupta wrote: > > As per latest musb tree, this portion of code is done in > > musb_configure_ep0() Due to BlackFin patches. BlackFin version already has this fix. > > > > #if BlackFin > > static inline void musb_configure_ep0(struct musb *musb) { > > musb->endpoints[0].max_packet_sz_tx = MUSB_EP0_FIFOSIZE; > > musb->endpoints[0].max_packet_sz_rx = MUSB_EP0_FIFOSIZE; > > musb->endpoints[0].is_shared_fifo = true; } #else static > > inline void musb_configure_ep0(struct musb *musb) { > > musb->endpoints[0].max_packet_sz_tx = MUSB_EP0_FIFOSIZE; > > musb->endpoints[0].max_packet_sz_rx = MUSB_EP0_FIFOSIZE; } > > #endif So I think its better to remove this inline function from > > musb_core.h And add it in musb_core.c itself. There is no need for > > BlackFin specific defs. > > Hmm, sure... that still in Greg's queue right ? > > Maybe Giuseppe could update his patch on top of Greg's queue then. > Giuseppe ? Any comments ? Sorry, I think I'm a complete rookie here. Could you kindly point me to the MUSB tree you are referring to? My patch was done on top of official 2.6.28.4 kernel. Anyway, as per my understanding "is_shared_fifo = true" for endpoint 0 is not platform specific: it's mandatory according to the current driver architecture, which is maybe dictated from the fact that, as for USB standard, endpoint 0 must be bidirectional. Hence I agree with Ajay: there is no reason for having a BlackFin variant. Giuseppe. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
