Re: [PATCH 4/9] musb_host: fix endpoint_disable() method (take 2)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello.

David Brownell wrote:

Why does this have two different code paths for the
"unlink everything that the hardware doesn't have its
mittens on" branch?

It certainly *looks* goofy this way, and if it's not
buggy today then it'll probably grow some in the future.

Whoops, I see.  The answer should have been in a comment;

Thank goodness. I hoped that I hadn't spent the time writing the patch description in vain too... :-/

I'll fix that and send to Greg.

Answer to my question:  because one branch must advance
the bulk or control queue the endpoint was on, but the
other branch doesn't.

Yes. The other branch also must not call musb_giveback() because thel latter assumes to be called on active qh and will e.g. spoil the saved toggle state otherwise.

WBR, Sergei


--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux