Hi, On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:53:57AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Until then, I don't think we have a solution for this problem which > > would work always and, in fact, I don't want to have such a solution > > otherwise we will have to maintain it for the forseeable future. > > I don't agree with you here. > > The existing usb_gadget_disconnect() function is documented as > > * Disables the D+ (or potentially D-) pullup, which the host may see > * as a disconnect (when a VBUS session is active). Not all systems > * support software pullup controls. > * > * This routine may be used during the gadget driver bind() call to prevent > * the peripheral from ever being visible to the USB host, unless later > * usb_gadget_connect() is called. For example, user mode components may > * need to be activated before the system can talk to hosts. > > In practice this doesn't work, calling usb_gadget_disconnect() during bind > doesn't prevent the device from being visible to the USB host. That's what I Ok, I missed that memo, sorry. To me it's working fine, actually. What's the issue you have with that ? > think should be fixed, until the configfs-based solution is ready. > > We should of course not add any API to expose ->pullup() to userspace as an > interim solution, as that one would need to be maintained. correct. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
