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

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

On 12-05-2011 8:47, Greg KH wrote:

>>>>>>>>> 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

> 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'm OK with applying the patch to 2.6.39 actually. If I understood 
correctly, the code will be reworked to get rid of cpu_is_*() for 2.6.40+...

> thanks,

> greg k-h

WBR, Sergei