Hi J,
On 01/21/2014 01:49 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
On 11:39 Mon 20 Jan , Bo Shen wrote:
Hi J,
On 01/18/2014 01:20 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
On 10:59 Fri 17 Jan , Bo Shen wrote:
In sama5d3 SoC, there are 16 endpoints. As the USBA_NR_ENDPOINTS
is only 7. So, fix it for sama5d3 SoC using the udc->num_ep.
Signed-off-by: Bo Shen <voice.shen@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/usb/gadget/atmel_usba_udc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/atmel_usba_udc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/atmel_usba_udc.c
index 2cb52e0..7e67a81 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/atmel_usba_udc.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/atmel_usba_udc.c
@@ -1670,7 +1670,7 @@ static irqreturn_t usba_udc_irq(int irq, void *devid)
if (ep_status) {
int i;
- for (i = 0; i < USBA_NR_ENDPOINTS; i++)
+ for (i = 0; i < udc->num_ep; i++)
no the limit need to specified in the driver as a checkpoint by the compatible
or platform driver id
You mean, we should not trust the data passed from dt node or
platform data? Or do you think we should do double confirm?
no base on the driver name or the compatible you will known the MAX EP
not based on the dt ep description
as we do on pinctrl-at91
I am sorry, I am not fully get it after reading the code of
pinctrl-at91.c, can you give the example code in pinctrl-at91.c?
Btw, the udc->num_ep is get from the following code.
for dt
--->8---
while ((pp = of_get_next_child(np, pp)))
udc->num_ep++;
---<8---
for non-dt
--->8---
udc->num_ep = pdata->num_ep;
---8<---
Best Regards,
J.
if (ep_status & (1 << i)) {
if (ep_is_control(&udc->usba_ep[i]))
usba_control_irq(udc, &udc->usba_ep[i]);
--
1.8.5.2
Best Regards,
Bo Shen
Best Regards,
Bo Shen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
