usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
--- drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1 -1
@@ -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 ()) { udc->ep[0 ].maxpacket =64 ; udc->ep[3 ].maxpacket =64 ; udc->ep[4 ].maxpacket =512 ;
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.1
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Le 10/05/2011 16:24, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD :
Quoted 1 line
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
No! Typo: you mean 9260.
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>
*When* typo corrected:
Quoted 17 lines
--- drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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 ()) { udc->ep[0 ].maxpacket =64 ; udc->ep[3 ].maxpacket =64 ; udc->ep[4 ].maxpacket =512 ;
Signature · 1 line
Nicolas Ferre
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
In reply to Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARDHello.
Quoted 12 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>--- drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +0
-0
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1770
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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.
WBR, Sergei
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 11 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 6 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>---
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Quoted 11 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1769
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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
if you take a look on other patch on the ML you will see some work done here
Best Regards,
J.
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 23 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 11 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 6 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>---
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)Quoted 11 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1769
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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.
Quoted 1 line
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
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 24 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 23 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 22 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 12 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>---
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +0
-0drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1769
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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.
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
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
Best Regards,
J.
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 25 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 24 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 23 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 22 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 12 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>---
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +0
-0drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1769
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
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?
Please provide a patch that I can apply against the linux-next tree if you want this change to be accepted.
thanks,
greg k-h
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 28 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 27 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 26 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 24 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 11 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 6 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>---
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)Quoted 11 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1769
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
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
Quoted 3 lines
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
Best Regards,
J.
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 34 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 33 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 31 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 24 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 23 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 22 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 12 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>---
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +0
-0drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1769
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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.
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
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
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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
Quoted 3 lines
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?
totally confused,
greg k-h
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 40 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 39 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 28 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 27 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 26 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 24 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 11 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 6 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>---
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)Quoted 11 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1769
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
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
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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.
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 47 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 46 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 34 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 33 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 31 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 24 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 23 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 22 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 12 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>---
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +0
-0drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1769
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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.
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
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
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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
Quoted 3 lines
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.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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 versionand 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.
thanks,
greg k-h
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Le 12/05/2011 06:47, Greg KH :
Quoted 50 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 49 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 48 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 34 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 33 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 31 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 24 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 23 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Quoted 22 lines
Hello.
Quoted 12 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>---
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +0
-0drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1769
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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.
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
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
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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
Quoted 3 lines
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?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
It does apply on the linux-next
and previous kernel versionand this patch is a fix for the current kernel
so I would like to have it for this release and the stable treeNo, 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,
Signature · 1 line
Nicolas Ferre
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 11 lines · Nicolas Ferre
Quoted 2 lines
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?
I don't have it here anymore, care to resend it?
thanks,
greg k-h
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
In reply to Greg KHHello.
Quoted 41 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 41 lines
Quoted 41 lines
Quoted 30 lines
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD<[email protected]>---
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c| 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)Quoted 11 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c static int __init at91udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 1769
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1
-1@@ -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
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
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?
Quoted 6 lines
I known we just need for the longterm and stable tree and the .39-rc8
Quoted 2 lines
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?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
It does apply on the linux-next
and previous kernel versionand this patch is a fix for the current kernel
so I would like to have it for this release and the stable treeNo, 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+...
Quoted 3 lines
thanks,
greg k-h
WBR, Sergei
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 10 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 2 lines · Greg KH
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+...
It's too late for .39, sorry.
thanks,
greg k-h
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 5 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 4 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
On 12-05-2011 8:47, Greg KH wrote:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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+...It's too late for .39, sorry.
can we have it for the stable kernel at least
all the kernel from the .26 suffer this issue
Best Regards,
J.
PATCH 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
Quoted 9 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 8 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 7 lines · Sergei Shtylyov
Hello.
Quoted 2 lines · Greg KH
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.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
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+...It's too late for .39, sorry.
can we have it for the stable kernel at least
Please go read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for how to get patches into the stable kernel trees.
thanks,
greg k-h
PATCH v2 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
In reply to Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARDon 9g20 they are the same as the 9260
--- drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1 -1
@@ -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 ()) { udc->ep[0 ].maxpacket =64 ; udc->ep[3 ].maxpacket =64 ; udc->ep[4 ].maxpacket =512 ;
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.1
PATCH v2 1/1 usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9260
---
Resent upon Greg's request.
Based on current linux-next.
Applies cleanly on current linus' tree (2.6.39-rc7+)
BTW, can we imagine it going to mainline before .39-final in a "fixes" pull request to Linus from a at91 tree?
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c +1 -1
@@ -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 ()) { udc->ep[0 ].maxpacket =64 ; udc->ep[3 ].maxpacket =64 ; udc->ep[4 ].maxpacket =512 ;
Signature · 1 line
1.7.3
Quoted 11 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9260
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>Acked-by Nicolas Ferre <[email protected]>---
Resent upon Greg's request.
Based on current linux-next.
Applies cleanly on current linus' tree (2.6.39-rc7+)BTW, can we imagine it going to mainline before .39-final in a "fixes" pull request to Linus from a at91 tree?
No, as I don't think this is a bug-fix-only-for-regression, is it?
It looks to be a "fix for new hardware" type thing, right?
And is this really the correct way to do this for the .40 kernel, which is where I would be queueing this up for?
thanks,
greg k-h
Le 13/05/2011 18:20, Greg KH :
Quoted 10 lines · Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Quoted 9 lines
on 9g20 they are the same as the 9260
Signed-off-by Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]>Acked-by Nicolas Ferre <[email protected]>---
Resent upon Greg's request.
Based on current linux-next.
Applies cleanly on current linus' tree (2.6.39-rc7+)
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
BTW, can we imagine it going to mainline before .39-final in a "fixes" pull request to Linus from a at91 tree?
No, as I don't think this is a bug-fix-only-for-regression, is it?
Not a regression, but a oh-my-god-how-it-has-been-there-for-such-a-long-time type of bug.
Quoted 1 line
It looks to be a "fix for new hardware" type thing, right?
Hardware has been merged in kernel for a pretty long time now... But anyway, I fully understand: this bug has been sitting in the dark for a handful of kernel revision now, so it can wait for .40...
Quoted 2 lines
And is this really the correct way to do this for the .40 kernel, which is where I would be queueing this up for?
Right. Let's queue it for .40.
Bye,
Signature · 1 line
Nicolas Ferre