Hi Paul, > > Before, the DISCONNINT interrupt was enabled in > > dwc2_enable_host_interrupts, but handled in dwc2_handle_common_intr, > > while the RXFLVL interrupt was enabled in dwc2_enable_commont_interrupts > > and handled in dwc_handle_hcd_intr. > > And, the RXFLVL interrupt is a host+device mode interrupt, so it > _should_ be enabled in dwc2_enable_common_interrupts. The only > handler for it is in dwc2_hcd_intr() because there is no device- > mode driver code yet. Once there is, there will either be two > handlers, or else a common handler with different code depending > on the mode. If RXFLVL is a host+device mode interrupt, doesn't it make sense to enable it in both enable_host_interrupts and (the future) enable_device_interrupts instead of in enable_common_interrupts? In practice, these two are always called (close) together, so it shouldn't really change any behaviour, but it does make the distinction between host, device and common mode interrupts more clear (and makes sure that enable_host_interrupts mirrors disable_host_interrupts)? This question only occurs for this particular interrupt, since the other host+device interrupts (SOF, NPTxFEmp) are not enabled right away, but later when needed. Gr. Matthijs -- 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
