On 8/7/2012 5:54 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi, On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:54:18PM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote:When MISSED_ISOC is set, BUSY is also set. Since, we are handling MISSED_ISOC as a separate case in third scenario, therefore handle only BUSY but not MISSED_ISOC in second scenario. Signed-off-by: Pratyush Anand <pratyush.anand@xxxxxx> --- drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c index 0ead4cd..800944f 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c @@ -1139,7 +1139,8 @@ static int __dwc3_gadget_ep_queue(struct dwc3_ep *dep, struct dwc3_request *req) * core may not see the modified TRB(s). */ if (usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(dep->endpoint.desc) && - (dep->flags & DWC3_EP_BUSY)) { + (dep->flags & DWC3_EP_BUSY) && + !(dep->flags & DWC3_EP_MISSED_ISOC)) {what about inverting the cases then ? Moving missed_isoc before ep_busy? Would that work ? I would be more comfortable with that, I guess.
Probably not. Even then (with inverted) case 2 (ie missed isoc) and case 3 (ie ep busy) will be true, and both if loop will be executed.
If we keep 3rd case in else part of 2nd case, then we do not need to check an extra flag in second case. Let me know, it this is ok with you.
Regards Pratyush -- 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
