On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:31:26 -0600
Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 08:18:16PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Felipe,
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:23:49 -0600
> > Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:57:56AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > at91sam
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 08:18:16PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Felipe,
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:23:49 -0600
> Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:57:56AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > at91sam9g45, at91sam9x5 and sama5 SoCs should not use
> > > "atmel,at91sam9rl-ud
Hi Felipe,
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:23:49 -0600
Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:57:56AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > at91sam9g45, at91sam9x5 and sama5 SoCs should not use
> > "atmel,at91sam9rl-udc" for their USB device compatible property since
> > this compatible is attached
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:57:56AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> at91sam9g45, at91sam9x5 and sama5 SoCs should not use
> "atmel,at91sam9rl-udc" for their USB device compatible property since
> this compatible is attached to a specific hardware bug fix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon
> Acked
at91sam9g45, at91sam9x5 and sama5 SoCs should not use
"atmel,at91sam9rl-udc" for their USB device compatible property since
this compatible is attached to a specific hardware bug fix.
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon
Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g45.dtsi | 2 +-
arch/