Hi Michal,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:58 PM Michal Suchánek msuchanek@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 22:29:42 +0800 Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:25 PM Michal Suchánek msuchanek@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 22:16:02 +0800 Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:14 PM Michal Suchánek msuchanek@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:59:49 +0200 Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 7/1/19 5:56 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek msuchanek@suse.de > --- > common/usb.c | 9 +++++++++ > include/usb.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/common/usb.c b/common/usb.c > index 3ae71c98aaf4..d8302d39a91a 100644 > --- a/common/usb.c > +++ b/common/usb.c > @@ -200,6 +200,15 @@ int usb_submit_int_msg(struct usb_device *dev, unsigned long pipe, > return submit_int_msg(dev, pipe, buffer, transfer_len, interval, false); > } > > +/* > + * submits an Interrupt Message without retry > + */ > +int usb_submit_int_msg_nonblock(struct usb_device *dev, unsigned long pipe, > + void *buffer, int transfer_len, int interval) > +{ > + return submit_int_msg(dev, pipe, buffer, transfer_len, interval, true); > +}
Is this wrapper really necessary ?
Avoids changing other users of the code. Not that there are that many, anyway.
Then I wonder why not change your codes to call submit_int_msg() instead?
Why do we have usb_submit_int_msg in the first place?
I am happy to remove that. A patch is welcome. :)
So the answer is we have wrappers for USB messages, and while submit_int_msg is trivial others are not. To keep reasonable interface all messages should be wrapped.
I don't see usb_submit_control_msg() or usb_submit_bulk_msg(), so I think we should remove usb_submit_int_msg() and just leave submit_int_msg() for drivers to call.
Regards, Bin