[PATCH] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

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 at jcrosoft.com>
> > > > > > > >---
> > > > > > > > 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

hope it's clear

Best Regards,
J.