[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <502E2D69.3040302@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:39:21 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>
CC: balbi@...com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
arnd@...db.de, aletes.xgr@...il.com, kevin.wells@....com,
srinivas.bakki@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: lpc32xx_udc: Port to new start/stop interface
On 08/17/2012 01:32 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> How about the following: Below, I show how the initialization of the
> current controller is done (statically). Removing this struct
> initialization completely would make the code much uglier, introducing
> many individual assignments.
I said what I had to say, I leave it up to Felipe.
> static struct lpc32xx_udc controller = {
> .gadget = {
> .ops =&lpc32xx_udc_ops,
> .ep0 =&controller.ep[0].ep,
> .name = driver_name,
> .dev = {
> .init_name = "gadget",
> .release = nop_release,
> }
> },
> .ep[0] = {
> .ep = {
> .name = "ep0",
> .ops =&lpc32xx_ep_ops,
> },
> .udc =&controller,
> .maxpacket = 64,
> .hwep_num_base = 0,
> .hwep_num = 0, /* Can be 0 or 1, has special
> handling */
Can it be 0 or 1 or has it to be 0? Who would change and why?
> .lep = 0,
> .eptype = EP_CTL_TYPE,
> },
> .ep[1] = {
> .ep = {
> .name = "ep1-int",
> .ops =&lpc32xx_ep_ops,
> },
> .udc =&controller,
> .maxpacket = 64,
> .hwep_num_base = 2,
> .hwep_num = 0, /* 2 or 3, will be set later */
Why not now?
> .lep = 1,
> .eptype = EP_INT_TYPE,
Do you have any restrictions on these endpoints? I mean can you pick
any endpoints for BULK/INT/ISO or have they been pre-defined by HW?
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists