Thanks, right I was looking at older version of Linux (3.8) before https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/6aec044cc2f5670cf3b143c151c8be846499bd15. But the question remains why post_reset method is called in reverse order for interfaces. Is there any reason for this ? especially after rebind has been changed in above mentioned patch from reverse to forward order. On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Mikolaj Ch wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have a composite usb device where order of binding the drivers to >> interfaces matters. >> When the device is plugged in binding is from 0-th till n-th interface >> but in usb_reset_device function in /drivers/usb/core/hub.c after >> reset binding is done in revers order from n-th till 0. >> Is there a reason for doing so ? > > You are reading the code wrong. usb_reset_device() calls the > post_reset methods of the interface drivers in reverse order, but the > rebinding is done by rebind_marked_interfaces() in driver.c in forward > order. > > Alan Stern > >> Can I expect any disadvantages after changing this order to be from 0 >> till n-th ? >> >> I know that the easiest solution is to claim the device driver is >> badly written but I don't have a possibility to change it so I want to >> know if changing this order in usb cored driver is possible without >> affecting other functionality. > -- 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
