On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 11:47:56AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 08/01/2013 11:29 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Hi felipe, > > > as we all know naming conventions are fragile and easy to break. > > We've had weird endpoint naming conventions for far too long in the > > gadget framework. > > > > I'm trying to come up with means to get rid of that and, one of > > the ideas, was to add transfer support flags to our struct usb_ep > > which gets initialized by the UDC driver. Then ep_matches() can use > > those flags to check if it should return that endpoint or not. > > > > The ***UNFINISHED*** patch below does just that and shows an > > example of how to initialize such flags on dwc3. Please go over it > > and let me know what you guys think. > > I think this is a good step forward. I remember dummy followed once two > conventions and returned endpoints twice. So I like the idea. > Are you trying to make the gadget_is_*() in usb_ep_autoconfig_ss() also > somehow generic? yeah, I want to drop gadget_is_*() altogether and add feature flags for the struct usb_gadget too. I mean, gadget driver shouldn't need to know that it's running on dwc3, it needs to know if the UDC supports alternate settings. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
