On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote: > if we initialize gadget->dev.driver ourselves, > UDC drivers won't have to do the same, so we > can remove some duplicated code. > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>
There's something odd going on here that I don't understand... > @@ -296,6 +297,7 @@ static int udc_bind_to_driver(struct usb_udc *udc, struct > usb_gadget_driver *dri > > udc->driver = driver; > udc->dev.driver = &driver->driver; > + udc->gadget->dev.driver = &driver->driver; Why is the same pointer assigned as the driver of two different devices? The assignment to udc->gadget->dev.driver looks reasonable, since here "driver" really is a usb_gadget_driver. But it's not a UDC driver, so why do we have the first two lines above? At best they are redundant. More likely they are either wrong or unnecessary. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
