On 08.12.20 16:54, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi,
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/atmel_usba_udc.c
>> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/atmel_usba_udc.c
>> index 2b893bceea45..4834fafb3f70 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/atmel_usba_udc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/atmel_usba_udc.c
>> @@ -1573,7 +1573,7 @@ static void usba_control_irq(struct usba_udc *udc,
>> struct usba_ep *ep)
>> * generate or receive a reply right away. */
>> usba_ep_writel(ep, CLR_STA, USBA_RX_SETUP);
>>
>> - /* printk(KERN_DEBUG "setup: %d: %02x.%02x\n",
>> + /* pr_debug("setup: %d: %02x.%02x\n",
>> ep->state, crq.crq.bRequestType,
>> crq.crq.bRequest); */
>
> I wonder if this shouldn't be dropped instead, commented-out code isn't
> very useful.
Indeed. Shall I send a separate patch for that ?
> When a pointer to a struct device is available, dev_err() would be much
> better. That's however out of scope for this patch, but it would be nice
> to address it. This would become
>
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Check IRQ setup!\n");
>
You're right. I didn't check for that yet. I'll do it in a separate
patch.
--mtx
--
---
Hinweis: unverschlüsselte E-Mails können leicht abgehört und manipuliert
werden ! Für eine vertrauliche Kommunikation senden Sie bitte ihren
GPG/PGP-Schlüssel zu.
---
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
i...@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
