From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932981Ab1EMQgT (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2011 12:36:19 -0400 Received: from newsmtp5.atmel.com ([204.2.163.5]:3110 "EHLO sjogate2.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753337Ab1EMQgS (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2011 12:36:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCD5DF0.8060406@atmel.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 18:36:00 +0200 From: Nicolas Ferre Organization: atmel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sshtylyov@mvista.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] usb/gadget: at91sam9g20 fix end point max packet size References: <1305042888-19401-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <1305298982-5789-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <20110513162054.GC2728@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20110513162054.GC2728@suse.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >> 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? 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