On 19:43 Tue 10 May , Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>
> >on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
>
> >Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> >diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c
> >index 9b7cdb1..41dc093 100644
> >--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c
> >+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c
> >@@ -1767,7 +1767,7 @@ static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > }
> > /* newer chips have more FIFO memory than rm9200 */
> >- if (cpu_is_at91sam9260()) {
> >+ if (cpu_is_at91sam9260() || cpu_is_at91sam9g20()) {
>
> These shouldn't be used in the drivers at all.
Sorry this is a bug fix for the current rc and 2.6.38 and older stable tree
if you take a look on other patch on the ML you will see some work done here
Best Regards,
J.
--
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
