[RFC 2/9] WIP: fix drivers/usb/core/usb.c
Antony Pavlov
antonynpavlov at gmail.com
Fri Aug 28 08:51:04 PDT 2015
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:11:59 +0200
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 01:24:03AM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote:
> > drivers/usb/core/usb.c: In function 'usb_parse_config':
> > drivers/usb/core/usb.c:194:28: error: 'struct usb_configuration' has no
> > member named 'wTotalLength'
> > le16_to_cpus(&(dev->config.wTotalLength));
> > ^
> > ...
> > scripts/Makefile.build:249: recipe for target 'drivers/usb/core/usb.o'
> > failed
> > make[3]: *** [drivers/usb/core/usb.o] Error 1
> > scripts/Makefile.build:387: recipe for target 'drivers/usb/core' failed
> > make[2]: *** [drivers/usb/core] Error 2
> > scripts/Makefile.build:387: recipe for target 'drivers/usb' failed
> > make[1]: *** [drivers/usb] Error 2
> > Makefile:770: recipe for target 'drivers' failed
> > make: *** [drivers] Error 2
> >
> > see also
> >
> > commit 245069bcef15ecc19db616a967501349b76c84d0
> > Author: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>
> > Date: Thu Jul 10 11:36:12 2014 +0200
> >
> > USB: introduce usb_interface/usb_configuration structs
> >
> > Currently we have two conflicting definitions of struct
> > usb_config_descriptor
> > and struct usb_interface_descriptor in the tree. This is because the
> > USB code
> > uses additional fields in the structs for internal housekeeping. Add
> > struct usb_interface and struct struct usb_configuration with the
> > housekeeping
> > data and embed the corresponding hardware structs into them. This
> > frees the
> > way to use the definitions from ch9.h in the next step.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Antony Pavlov <antonynpavlov at gmail.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/core/usb.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/usb.c b/drivers/usb/core/usb.c
> > index 9073fff..f8d6014 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/core/usb.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/usb.c
> > @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ static int usb_parse_config(struct usb_device *dev, unsigned char *buffer, int c
> > return -1;
> > }
> > memcpy(&dev->config, buffer, buffer[0]);
> > - le16_to_cpus(&(dev->config.wTotalLength));
> > + le16_to_cpus(&(dev->config.desc.wTotalLength));
> > dev->config.no_of_if = 0;
>
>
> What's WIP in this patch? It looks 100% correct.
WIP means that I don't understand why nobody but me detected this build problem.
Have you any idea?
--
Best regards,
Antony Pavlov
More information about the barebox
mailing list