* Tanya Brokhman | 2011-05-22 10:20:42 [+0300]: >Hi Sebastian Hi Tanya, >> >+ usb_ext = (struct usb_ext_cap_descriptor *) >> cdev->req->buf is (void *) so you can skip that cast. >> >> >+ (cdev->req->buf+bos->wTotalLength); >> a space between + please. bos->wTotalLength is le16 so you can't simply >> do that way. >> >> What about something like >> >> usb_ext = (struct usb_ext_cap_descriptor *)(bos + 1) >> >> ? > >Added the spaces and the le16_to_cpu(bos->wTotalLength). >It seems clearer to me to leave it as > usb_ext = cdev->req->buf + le16_to_cpu(bos->wTotalLength); >if that's ok with you. Yes it is. > >> >@@ -499,6 +633,9 @@ static int set_config(struct usb_composite_dev >> *cdev, >> > case USB_SPEED_LOW: speed = "low"; break; >> > case USB_SPEED_FULL: speed = "full"; break; >> > case USB_SPEED_HIGH: speed = "high"; break; >> >+ case USB_SPEED_SUPER: >> >+ speed = "super"; >> >+ break; >> >> This is not my favorite style either but please do it the way the other >> three are done. > >Well here is the dilemma: if I do it the other tree were done - I get >checkpatch error. >You're right, adding this the way it's above doesn't look too good but when >I fixed the other three I was asked not to do so in this patch, which also >makes sense since it has nothing to do with SS support... >So what do I do? Submit with a checkpatch error? It is nice to have things consistent and a follow-up patch could fix the checkpatch error(s). > > Sebastian -- 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
