[PATCH V2] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size

[PATCH V2] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

on 9g20 they are the same as the 9260

Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
---
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(-)

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()) {
 		udc->ep[0].maxpacket = 64;
 		udc->ep[3].maxpacket = 64;
 		udc->ep[4].maxpacket = 512;
-- 
1.7.3

Re: [PATCH V2] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size

[Greg KH]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 05:03:02PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> on 9g20 they are the same as the 9260
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
> ---
> 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

Re: [PATCH V2] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size

[Nicolas Ferre]

Le 13/05/2011 18:20, Greg KH :
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 05:03:02PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>> on 9g20 they are the same as the 9260
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
>> ---
>> 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?

Not a regression, but a
oh-my-god-how-it-has-been-there-for-such-a-long-time type of bug.

> 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...

> 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,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre