[PATCH v4 3/4] USB: Gadget: Add Samsung S3C24XX USB High-Speed controller driver

[Heiko Stübner]

Am Samstag 16 April 2011, 16:58:30 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 12:00:31PM +0200, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag 14 April 2011, 19:15:23 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Heiko [iso-8859-1] St?bner wrote:
> > > > > > From: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab at samsung.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The Samsung's S3C2416, S3C2443 and S3C2450 includes a USB
> > > > > > High-Speed device controller module. This driver enables support
> > > > > > for USB high-speed gadget functionality for the Samsung S3C24xx
> > > > > > SoC's that include this controller.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab at samsung.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73 at samsung.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim at samsung.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Neumann <alexander at bumpern.de>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de>
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > > +static struct usb_ep_ops s3c_hsudc_ep_ops = {
> > > > > > +	.enable = s3c_hsudc_ep_enable,
> > > > > > +	.disable = s3c_hsudc_ep_disable,
> > > > > > +	.alloc_request = s3c_hsudc_alloc_request,
> > > > > > +	.free_request = s3c_hsudc_free_request,
> > > > > > +	.queue = s3c_hsudc_queue,
> > > > > > +	.dequeue = s3c_hsudc_dequeue,
> > > > > > +	.set_halt = s3c_hsudc_set_halt,
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > 
> > > > > There's no .set_wedge method.  Why do people always leave this out?
> > > > 
> > > > Does the code spit out a nasty warning if this isn't set?  If not, I
> > > > would suggest adding it so that this doesn't keep happening.
> > > > 
> > > > Or just refuse to be able to register the structure, that would stop
> > > > it right away :)
> > > 
> > > In fact, set_wedge is optional.  But it's so easy to implement, there's
> > > no good reason for leaving it out.
> > 
> > It seems Thomas [original author of the driver] will be able to implement
> > said set_wedge function for it.
> > As he will need a bit of time for this, two possible ways for going
> > forward come to mind:
> > (1) use current driver [as set_wedge is optional] and add it later via
> > patch (2) resubmit whole driver again when set_wedge is added to it
> > 
> > Obviously I would prefer option 1 :-), but in the end it's your decision.
>
> It shouldn't take that much time to do this, what is the delay?
from what I gathered, simply finding the necessary time slot for this.

> I'd prefer to get the correct version implemented and would not like to
> accept a patch that everyone knows is wrong.
ok, I will resubmit the driver when set_wedge is included

Heiko