Hello.
David Brownell wrote:
Why does this have two different code paths for the
"unlink everything that the hardware doesn't have its
mittens on" branch?
It certainly *looks* goofy this way, and if it's not
buggy today then it'll probably grow some in the future.
Whoops, I see. The answer should have been in a comment;
Thank goodness. I hoped that I hadn't spent the time writing the
patch description in vain too... :-/
I'll fix that and send to Greg.
Answer to my question: because one branch must advance
the bulk or control queue the endpoint was on, but the
other branch doesn't.
Yes. The other branch also must not call musb_giveback() because thel
latter assumes to be called on active qh and will e.g. spoil the saved
toggle state otherwise.
WBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
