Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 08:21:11AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > @@ -990,7 +1000,6 @@ static int dummy_udc_start(struct usb_ga >> > spin_lock_irq(&dum->lock); >> > dum->devstatus = 0; >> > dum->driver = driver; >> > - dum->ints_enabled = 1; >> >> should the matching write of 0 be removed from dummy_udc_stop()? > > No, it's okay to leave that one. In practice it won't make any > difference because now the core will always turn off async callbacks > before doing udc_stop. It's there for the sake of thoroughness, and it > lets the reader know that emulated interrupts are supposed to be turned > off whenever the UDC stops running (just like a driver for a real UDC). > > Whereas this line here in dummy_udc_start would be actively wrong if it > were to remain. fair enough :-) I see Greg took the series already ;-) Thanks for working on this, again. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
