Hi, On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:55:40AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > if we initialize gadget->dev.driver ourselves, > > UDC drivers won't have to do the same, so we > > can remove some duplicated code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > > There's something odd going on here that I don't understand... > > > @@ -296,6 +297,7 @@ static int udc_bind_to_driver(struct usb_udc *udc, struct usb_gadget_driver *dri > > > > udc->driver = driver; > > udc->dev.driver = &driver->driver; > > + udc->gadget->dev.driver = &driver->driver; > > Why is the same pointer assigned as the driver of two different > devices? > > The assignment to udc->gadget->dev.driver looks reasonable, since here > "driver" really is a usb_gadget_driver. But it's not a UDC driver, so > why do we have the first two lines above? > > At best they are redundant. More likely they are either wrong or > unnecessary. udc->dev.driver assignment looks unnecessary, indeed, but udc->driver is needed. We're using that to know that this particular UDC is busy already. Look at the uses of udc->driver in drivers/usb/gadget/udc-core.c -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
