On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 05:50:38PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> 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
How could I apply this to the tree for the .40 release then?
confused,
greg k-h
--
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
