Hi, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -241,6 +241,9 @@ int dwc3_send_gadget_ep_cmd(struct dwc3_ep *dep, unsigned cmd, >>>>>>>>>>>> int susphy = false; >>>>>>>>>>>> int ret = -EINVAL; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!dwc->pullups_connected) >>>>>>>>>>>> + return -ESHUTDOWN; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> you skip trace_dwc3_gadget_ep_cmd() >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, we did not need trace here since we did not send out the command. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> What in such case: enumeration will not work and this will be because >>>>>>> this ESHUTDOWN or wrong pullups_connected usage. Without a trace you >>>>>>> will not know where the problem is. >>>>>>> In my opinion this trace could be useful. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have returned the '-ESHUTDOWN' error number for user to know what >>>>>> happened. >>>>> >>>>> No, this is actually not good and Janusz has a very valid point >>>>> here. When we're debugging something in dwc3, we want to rely on >>>>> tracepoints to tell us what's going on. I don't want to have to add more >>>>> debugging messages to print out that ESHUTDOWN error just so I can >>>>> figure out what's going on. You should be patching this in a way that >>>>> the tracepoint is still printed out properly. >>>> >>>> Fine. Will fix this in next version. >>>> >>> >>> BTW, did you test this patch with device mode? >>> Seems in my setup this fail - DWC3_DEPCMD_SETEPCONFIG for ep0out and >>> gadget_start() failed (enumeration fail). >>> Don't we need to queue ep0 cmds before pullup? >> >> Baolin, it's clear to me that you're not testing any of the patches > > I am sure I tested every patch I send to you. But this one is really > my mistake and I thought this is just one small change with just eye > review. I am really sorry for troubles. fair enough, luckily Janusz caught it before any harm could be done. Thanks for taking the time to explain. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
