Felipe Balbi wrote:
NAK, too much in one patch :-(
wouldn't see it that way. Except fusb is mostly the same thing in the
drivers. So maybe split fusb away.
diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig b/drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig
index 46a253a..b0594d9 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig
@@ -425,6 +426,7 @@ config USB_GOKU
config USB_LANGWELL
tristate "Intel Langwell USB Device Controller"
depends on PCI
+ depends on !PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
I would rather not. what if Intel comes up with a PCIe card to aid
development with this controller ?
That is unlikely but if that happens they have to fix it anyway. And once
they did so they can remove this depends on statement.
diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/fusb300_udc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/fusb300_udc.c
index 06353e7..277ebaa 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/fusb300_udc.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/fusb300_udc.c
+#if 0
static void fusb300_set_ep_bycnt(struct fusb300_ep *ep, u32 bycnt)
{
struct fusb300 *fusb300 = ep->fusb300;
@@ -1034,6 +1037,7 @@ static void fusb300_set_ep_bycnt(struct fusb300_ep *ep, u32 bycnt)
iowrite32(reg, fusb300->reg + FUSB300_OFFSET_EPFFR(ep->epnum));
}
+#endif
I would rather remove the dead code. I'm sure there are people keeping
local patches to invert the if 0 crap so they can test PIO mode. It
would better if they would send us a proper patch making that runtime
selectable.
Sure. They could consider this as the first warning (the Author would
be on Cc in case of submission) before removing the code. I personally
don't care either way :)
Sebastian
--
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
