Thanks Alan ! Just sent out the v7 of the series after fixing all other comments. Regards, Badhri On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 8:27 AM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:17:04PM -0700, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 11:26 AM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > @@ -756,10 +772,12 @@ int usb_gadget_disconnect(struct usb_gadget > > > *gadget) > > > > if (!gadget->connected) > > > > goto out; > > > > > > > > - if (gadget->deactivated) { > > > > + if (gadget->deactivated || !gadget->udc->started) { > > > > > > Do you really need to add this extra test? After all, if the gadget > > > isn't started then how could the previous test of gadget->connected > > > possibly succeed? > > > > > > In fact, I suspect this entire section of code was always useless, since > > > the gadget couldn't be connected now if it was already deactivated. > > > > > > > Thanks Alan ! Will fix all other comments in v7 but not sure about this one. > > Although the ->pullup() function will not be called, > > -> connected flag could actually be set when the gadget is not started. > > > > - if (gadget->deactivated || !gadget->udc->allow_connect) { > > + if (gadget->deactivated || !gadget->udc->allow_connect || > > !gadget->udc->started) { > > /* > > * If gadget is deactivated we only save new state. > > * Gadget will be connected automatically after activation. > > + * > > + * udc first needs to be started before gadget can be pulled up. > > */ > > gadget->connected = true; > > > > This could happen, for instance, when usb_udc_vbus_handler() is invoked > > after soft_connect_store() disconnects the gadget. > > Same applies to when usb_gadget_connect() is called after the gadget has > > been deactivated through usb_gadget_deactivate(). > > > > This implies that the checks should be there, right ? > > Yes, you're right; the checks do need to be there. I had forgotten > about these possible cases. Ignore that comment. > > Alan Stern