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

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

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261

Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@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()) {
 		udc->ep[0].maxpacket = 64;
 		udc->ep[3].maxpacket = 64;
 		udc->ep[4].maxpacket = 512;
-- 
1.7.4.1

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

[Nicolas Ferre]

Le 10/05/2011 16:24, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD :
> on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261

No! Typo: you mean 9260.

> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>

*When* typo corrected:
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.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()) {
>  		udc->ep[0].maxpacket = 64;
>  		udc->ep[3].maxpacket = 64;
>  		udc->ep[4].maxpacket = 512;


-- 
Nicolas Ferre

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

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:

> on 9g20 they are the same as the 9261

> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@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.

WBR, Sergei

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

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

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@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

if you take a look on other patch on the ML you will see some work done here

Best Regards,
J.

[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>
---
 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;
-- 
1.7.4.1

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

[Greg KH]

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@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?

confused,

greg k-h

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

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

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@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

Best Regards,
J.

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

[Greg KH]

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@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?

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

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

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@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

Best Regards,
J.

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

[Greg KH]

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@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?

totally confused,

greg k-h

[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@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.

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

[Greg KH]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 03:30:38AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> 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@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.

thanks,

greg k-h

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

[Nicolas Ferre]

Le 12/05/2011 06:47, Greg KH :
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 03:30:38AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>> 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@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 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,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

[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@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

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

[Greg KH]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:22:43AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> > 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] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size

[Greg KH]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:22:50PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On 12-05-2011 8:47, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> >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] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 08:08 Thu 12 May     , Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:22:50PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > Hello.
> > 
> > On 12-05-2011 8:47, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > >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] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size

[Greg KH]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:38:39PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 08:08 Thu 12 May     , Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:22:50PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > > 
> > > On 12-05-2011 8:47, Greg KH wrote:
> > > 
> > > >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

Please go read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for how to get
patches into the stable kernel trees.

thanks,

greg k-h

[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

[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

[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