Le 12/05/2011 06:47, Greg KH :
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 03:30:38AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>> On 06:50 Wed 11 May , Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 05:18:54AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>>>> On 18:58 Tue 10 May , Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 01:53:24AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>>>>>> On 10:05 Tue 10 May , Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>> it's also the case these patch apply from kernel v2.6.26 to above
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for the 2.6.40 we will rewrite the soc init so we may chane this in .40 or .41
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes no sense, how can I go back in time and apply this to an
>>>>> older kernel version?
>>>> I known we just need for the longterm and stable tree
>>>> and the .39-rc8
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide a patch that I can apply against the linux-next tree if
>>>>> you want this change to be accepted.
>>>> it's appy to the -next
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
>>>
>>> Care to resend this patch, the correct one, that I can apply to my
>>> usb-next tree for merging in the .40 merge cycle?
>> It does apply on the linux-next
>> and previous kernel version
>>
>> and this patch is a fix for the current kernel
>> so I would like to have it for this release and the stable tree
>
> No, I can't apply it because of the comments above Sergei. Please fix
> that and get his approval and then I will be able to apply it.
I see...
Jean-Christophe already posted a V2 patch (on lakml and linux-usb):
"[PATCH V2] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size"
with proper comment and my "Acked-by".
Is it ok for you?
Best regards,
--
Nicolas Ferre
--
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
