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@rowland.harvard.edu 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@rowland.harvard.edu 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.
*/ gadget->connected = true;
- udc first needs to be started before gadget can be pulled up.
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