On 18/05/16 06:18, Peter Chen wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:51:53PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>> On 16/05/16 12:23, Peter Chen wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:26:57AM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 16/05/16 10:02, Peter Chen wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 01:03:27PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static int usb_gadget_connect_control(struct usb_gadget *gadget, bool connect)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct usb_udc *udc;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&udc_lock);
>>>>>> + udc = usb_gadget_to_udc(gadget);
>>>>>> + if (!udc) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(gadget->dev.parent, "%s: gadget not registered.\n",
>>>>>> + __func__);
>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&udc_lock);
>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (connect) {
>>>>>> + if (!gadget->connected)
>>>>>> + usb_gadget_connect(udc->gadget);
>>>>>> + } else {
>>>>>> + if (gadget->connected) {
>>>>>> + usb_gadget_disconnect(udc->gadget);
>>>>>> + udc->driver->disconnect(udc->gadget);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&udc_lock);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this is called for vbus interrupt, why not using
>>>>> usb_udc_vbus_handler directly, and call udc->driver->disconnect
>>>>> at usb_gadget_stop.
>>>>
>>>> We can't assume that this is always called for vbus interrupt so
>>>> I decided not to call usb_udc_vbus_handler.
>>>>
>>>> udc->vbus is really pointless for us. We keep vbus states in our
>>>> state machine and leave udc->vbus as ture always.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you want to move udc->driver->disconnect() to stop?
>>>> If USB controller disconnected from bus then the gadget driver
>>>> must be notified about the disconnect immediately. The controller
>>>> may or may not be stopped by the core.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then, would you give some comments when this API will be used?
>>> I was assumed it is only used for drd state machine.
>>
>> drd_state machine didn't even need this API in the first place :).
>> You guys wanted me to separate out start/stop and connect/disconnect for full OTG case.
>> Won't full OTG state machine want to use this API? If not what would it use?
>>
>
> Oh, I meant only drd and fully otg state machine needs it. I am
> wondering if we need have a new API to do it. Two questions:
OK.
>
> - Except for vbus interrupt, any chances this API will be used at
> current logic?
I don't think so. But we can't assume caller behaviour for any API.
> - When this API is called but without a coming gadget->stop?
>
Never for DRD case. But we want to catch wrong users.
cheers,
-roger
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
