On 15 November 2012 23:28, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 15 November 2012 20:57, Andy Shevchenko >> <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> Well, the prep_* should assign the value due to changes of check in the >>> dwc_descriptor_complete. Otherwise we will potentially skip some >>> important piece of code. >> >> What i meant to say was, set_runtime_config() must have already done this >> part. > > On one hand it is true. On the other - *_prep* functions use > explicitly passed parameter. I doubt there is a consistency between > value in slave config passed via dwc_control and value passed as > explicit function parameter.
I believe it should be consistent. @Vinod: Why have we duplicated direction? Once in prep_* and then in slave_config? -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/