Yeah. I guess it's fine... I was going to suggest adding the + 1 in a
different place but actually it doesn't matter.
The key to understanding dwc2_set_param_host_channels() is that the
"val" parameter is always -1. That means it always returns -EINVAL and
the caller jumbles the error code in with some other error codes and
then ignores any errors. :/
2182 int dwc2_set_param_host_channels(struct dwc2_hsotg *hsotg, int val)
2183 {
2184 int valid = 1;
2185 int retval = 0;
2186
2187 if (val < 1 || val > hsotg->hw_params.host_channels)
2188 valid = 0;
2189
2190 if (!valid) {
2191 if (val >= 0)
2192 dev_err(hsotg->dev,
2193 "%d invalid for host_channels. Check HW configuration.\n",
2194 val);
2195 val = hsotg->hw_params.host_channels;
2196 dev_dbg(hsotg->dev, "Setting host_channels to %d\n", val);
2197 retval = -EINVAL;
2198 }
2199
2200 hsotg->core_params->host_channels = val;
2201 return retval;
2202 }
It would be better to re-write this with all the dead cruft removed:
int dwc2_set_param_host_channels(struct dwc2_hsotg *hsotg)
{
hsotg->core_params->host_channels = hsotg->hw_params.host_channels + 1;
return 0;
}
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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
