2010/9/17 Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hello.
>
> Ming Lei wrote:
>
>>>>> I don't understand why we have to check this twice when only once
>>>>> would
>>>>> suffice.
>>>>
>>>> This check can handle both zero and non-zero request, so it is needed.
>
>>> It's needed above all the other checks, that's all. We don't need to
>>> check
>>> it twice.
>
>> The 1st check is
>>
>> if ((request->zero && request->length
>> && (request->length % musb_ep->packet_sz == 0)
>> && (request->actual == request->length)
>> || ... ) {
>> ...
>> }
>
>> The 2nd is
>
>> if (request->actual == request->length) {
>> musb_g_giveback(musb_ep, request, 0);
>> ......
>> }
>
>> The 1st check only can handle request with zlp,
>
> That's only in your patch. The original code was correct, except 'is_dma'
> part.
We have discussed the patch for some time already, why do you say
original code again?
For the patch, it is more clear than original code in logic:
- handle zlp or short packet first if one of two conditions is true
- complete the request if data transfer is over
If you have not any objections for this patch instead of original code, I
will submit to Felipe and let him decide.
--
Lei Ming
--
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
