Thanks Alan ! Just sent out the v7 of the series after fixing all
other comments.
Regards,
Badhri
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 8:27 AM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:17:04PM -0700, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 11:26 AM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > > @@ -756,10 +772,12 @@ int usb_gadget_disconnect(struct usb_gadget
> > > *gadget)
> > > > if (!gadget->connected)
> > > > goto out;
> > > >
> > > > - if (gadget->deactivated) {
> > > > + if (gadget->deactivated || !gadget->udc->started) {
> > >
> > > Do you really need to add this extra test? After all, if the gadget
> > > isn't started then how could the previous test of gadget->connected
> > > possibly succeed?
> > >
> > > In fact, I suspect this entire section of code was always useless, since
> > > the gadget couldn't be connected now if it was already deactivated.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Alan ! Will fix all other comments in v7 but not sure about this one.
> > Although the ->pullup() function will not be called,
> > -> connected flag could actually be set when the gadget is not started.
> >
> > - if (gadget->deactivated || !gadget->udc->allow_connect) {
> > + if (gadget->deactivated || !gadget->udc->allow_connect ||
> > !gadget->udc->started) {
> > /*
> > * If gadget is deactivated we only save new state.
> > * Gadget will be connected automatically after activation.
> > + *
> > + * udc first needs to be started before gadget can be pulled up.
> > */
> > gadget->connected = true;
> >
> > This could happen, for instance, when usb_udc_vbus_handler() is invoked
> > after soft_connect_store() disconnects the gadget.
> > Same applies to when usb_gadget_connect() is called after the gadget has
> > been deactivated through usb_gadget_deactivate().
> >
> > This implies that the checks should be there, right ?
>
> Yes, you're right; the checks do need to be there. I had forgotten
> about these possible cases. Ignore that comment.
>
> Alan Stern
