On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 06:09:10PM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> 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.
aaa, indeed. I guess I'll apply this patch as is. For some reason I
thought we had return statements inside each if block. Oh well, getting
old I guess :-p
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
