On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:02, Tatyana Brokhman wrote:
> +config USB_GADGET_SUPERSPEED
> + Â Â Â boolean "Gadget operating in Super Speed"
perhaps better phrasing would be: Enable Super Speed support
maybe i didnt look too closely, but it seems like very little even
depends upon this Kconfig option in the actual source. only the
"gadget_is_superspeed()", and that is used lightly. so i wonder how
useful this is even having ...
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â value = min(w_length, (u16) value);
i know you're just following existing style, but i wonder if these all
shouldnt just be min_t(u16, ...)
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ERROR(cdev, "func_suspend() returned "
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "error %d\n", value);
please dont split string literals over multiple lines
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â default:
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â break;
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â }
isnt that the default behavior already ? so these two lines are pointless ?
> --- a/include/linux/usb/ch9.h
> +++ b/include/linux/usb/ch9.h
> @@ -142,8 +142,6 @@
> Â#define USB_DEVICE_LTM_ENABLE Â50 Â Â Â/* dev may send LTM */
> Â#define USB_INTRF_FUNC_SUSPEND 0 Â Â Â /* function suspend */
>
> -#define USB_INTR_FUNC_SUSPEND_OPT_MASK 0xFF00
> -
> Â#define USB_ENDPOINT_HALT Â Â Â Â Â Â Â0 Â Â Â /* IN/OUT will STALL */
>
> Â/* Bit array elements as returned by the USB_REQ_GET_STATUS request. */
erm, seems unrelated to this patchset ? did this sneak in by accident ?
> +static inline int gadget_is_superspeed(struct usb_gadget *g)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_USB_GADGET_SUPERSPEED
> + Â Â Â /* runtime test would check "g->is_superspeed" ... that might be
> + Â Â Â Â* useful to work around hardware bugs, but is mostly pointless
> + Â Â Â Â*/
multiline comments should read:
/*
* foo .....
*/
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
