From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregkh@suse.de (Greg KH) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:20:54 -0700 Subject: [PATCH V2] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size In-Reply-To: <1305298982-5789-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> References: <1305042888-19401-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <1305298982-5789-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> Message-ID: <20110513162054.GC2728@suse.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre > --- > 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932839Ab1EMQXu (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2011 12:23:50 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57352 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752851Ab1EMQXt (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2011 12:23:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:20:54 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, sshtylyov@mvista.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size Message-ID: <20110513162054.GC2728@suse.de> References: <1305042888-19401-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <1305298982-5789-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1305298982-5789-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre > --- > 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