Hi, On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:15:25PM +0200, Krzysztof Opasiak wrote: > >>>+ } > >>>+ > >>>+ return ret; > >>> } > >>> > >> > >>Personally I don't like this convention. In my opinion usb_ep_disable() & > >>usb_ep_enable() should fail if ep is already disabled/enabled. Then in > >>function code we should check if endpoint is enabled (maybe even we should > >>have usb_ep_is_enabled()) and call disable only when it is really enabled. > > > >usb_ep_is_enabled() should be a good addition but I don't see an issue > >ignoring usb_ep_enabled() for something that's already enabled. > > > >Imagine if you got an error when you tried to push the light switch to > >the 'on' position while the light was already on :-p > > > > Hmmm not sure right now, didn't test this recently :D as usually I check if > light isn't already "on" before I touch the switch to turn it on:P not my best analogy :) > Just joking. Personally I just prefer to don't touch things which are > already in desired condition. Let's take close() as example which > could be a little bit equivalent of our usb_ep_disable(). It is not > legal to call it twice on some fd and second call ends up with error. I understand that, it's just the difference between adding usb_ep_is_enabled() to every single gadget/function driver or adding it to usb_ep_enable() itself to keep gadget/function drivers cleaner. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
