On 7/2/19 4:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:11:07 +0200 Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:04 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:58:30 +0200 Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 7/1/19 5:56 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
Causes unbound key repeat on error otherwise.
Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek msuchanek@suse.de
common/usb_kbd.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/usb_kbd.c b/common/usb_kbd.c index cc99c6be0720..948f9fd68490 100644 --- a/common/usb_kbd.c +++ b/common/usb_kbd.c @@ -339,10 +339,9 @@ static inline void usb_kbd_poll_for_event(struct usb_device *dev) struct usb_kbd_pdata *data = dev->privptr;
/* Submit a interrupt transfer request */
- usb_submit_int_msg(dev, data->intpipe, &data->new[0], data->intpktsize,
data->intinterval);- usb_kbd_irq_worker(dev);
- if (!usb_submit_int_msg(dev, data->intpipe, &data->new[0],
Shouldn't you propagate return value from this function ? It can return ENOTSUPP.
If it did then probing keyboard would fail and we would not get here.
So there is no chance this function could return an error here, ever ? E.g. what if it's implemented and someone yanks the keyboard cable out just at the right time ?
It returns errors all the time with dwc2. That's why we need to check for the error condition. We should not get here if probing the keyboard failed, though. So if the function is not supported we will not get here. Anyway, if it's not supported or the keyboard is missing it by definition cannot provide useful result so we should not process it.
Except you start ignoring the error value from e.g. malfunctioning keyboard here, instead of propagating it, correct ?