On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:05:07AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Peter Chen wrote:
>
> > This is an internal API, and is used to find corresponding udc according
> > to gadget.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/gadget/udc/udc-core.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/udc-core.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/udc-core.c
> > index e31d574..36c58c9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/udc-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/udc-core.c
> > @@ -52,6 +52,25 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(udc_lock);
> >
> > /* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
> >
> > +static struct usb_udc *usb_gadget_find_udc(struct usb_gadget *gadget)
> > +{
> > + struct usb_udc *udc = NULL;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&udc_lock);
> > + list_for_each_entry(udc, &udc_list, list)
> > + if (udc->gadget == gadget)
> > + goto found;
> > + mutex_unlock(&udc_lock);
> > + dev_err(gadget->dev.parent, "gadget not registered.\n");
> > +
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > +found:
> > + mutex_unlock(&udc_lock);
> > + return udc;
> > +}
>
> An idea just struck me... Instead of looping through all the udc's to
> find the right one, why not simply store a pointer to the udc in struct
> usb_gadget?
>
> Also, it looks like there's a bug in usb_add_gadget_udc_release() in
> udc-core.c. The error pathway (between err3 and err2) does not undo
> the
>
> ret = device_register(&gadget->dev);
>
> call. There's a put_device() call but no device_del().
good point :-) Do you want to send a patch for that ?
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
