On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 12:55:36PM +0530, Viral Mehta wrote:
>
> Viral Mehta wrote:
>>
>>
>>> +
>>>
>>> /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>>>
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -426,7 +488,9 @@ static int rh_call_control (struct usb_hcd *hcd,
>>> struct urb *urb)
>>> case DeviceRequest | USB_REQ_GET_DESCRIPTOR:
>>> switch (wValue & 0xff00) {
>>> case USB_DT_DEVICE << 8:
>>> - if (hcd->driver->flags & HCD_USB2)
>>> + if (hcd->driver->flags & HCD_USB3)
>>> + bufp = usb3_rh_dev_descriptor;
>>> + else if (hcd->driver->flags & HCD_USB2)
>>> bufp = usb2_rh_dev_descriptor;
>>> else if (hcd->driver->flags & HCD_USB11)
>>> bufp = usb11_rh_dev_descriptor;
>>>
>> I think better to replace "if ... else if... else" with switch case as
>> you did in patch [06/23]
> You think its not a good idea ? or you want me to drop a patch to do this ?
No, it's probably a good idea. Feel free to send a patch to fix it. :)
Sarah Sharp
--
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
