сб, 26 янв. 2019 г. в 00:37, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, Bin Liu wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:47:02PM +0300, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
> > > By the way, why do we need to store the qh in urb->hcpriv?
> > > qh can always be accessible through urb->ep->hcpriv
> > > Wouldn't it be better to drop entire urb->hcpriv usage?
> >
> > I am not sure why. The code is there since the first commit in a decade
> > ago. But I tend to agree with you.
> >
> > In a quick search for urb->hcpriv and urb->ep->hcpriv, based on the
> > usage in core/hcd.c, it seems to me that urb->hcpriv should not be
> > changed in each controller driver, but I see both have been used in most
> > controller drivers. I will leave this to others to educate me.
>
> In some of the older HCDs, urb->hcpriv != NULL is used to indicate that
> urb is on an endpoint queue. Perhaps that usage was copied.
>
> Alan Stern
>
Hi,
Thank you for the explanation. I think that It would be great to
document it somewhere. Such a purpose for variable named `hcpriv' is
not entirely obvious.
Now it is clear to me, why __usb_hcd_giveback_urb() sets urb->hcpriv to NULL.
Returning to my initial patch. I think that it is still valid, though
I admit that the commit message must be rewritten.
In this code path we successfully queued the new urb, so urb->hcpriv
should be NOT NULL indicating that the urb is queued according to Alan
explanation.
musb_urb_enqueue(), musb_host.c line 2345:
if (ret == 0) {
urb->hcpriv = qh;
/* FIXME set urb->start_frame for iso/intr, it's tested in
* musb_start_urb(), but otherwise only konicawc cares ...
*/
}
--
With best regards,
Matwey V. Kornilov
