Hi Leandro,
Leandro Dorileo wrote:
- uhci_reg_write16 (controller, USBCMD, 4);
- hci_reg_write16 (controller, USBCMD, 4);
This change may not be a good idea.
Just changing the function names is not enough to abstract the code for different HCIs. I would prefer if the function names remain until a commit which actually covers one of OHCI and EHCI.
Subject: [PATCH 3/5] usb: API change, control receive endpoint_t
Changed the usb API where the control function first parameter now is a pointer of endpoint_t instead of a pointer of usbdevice_t.
Changing the API like this is a good thing.
The previous implementation assumed the first endpoint(index 0) as control, which is not true, we can have devices with more than a single control line.
What do you mean by index 0 here? Is it the index in an array in the USB stack? Is it the endpoint number?
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] uhci: control adaptations
Chaging the implementation of uhci_control function to match the api changes done in the previous patch.
These two changes should be in the same commit, otherwise the code is broken in between.
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] control users: change the callers of ->control
This also belongs in the same commit as 3 and 4.
This patch introduces changes in the usb main program and msc driver as well. It basically passes an endpoint_t instead of a usbdevice_t to control function.
We are still assuming the first endpoint to be the control one. We may need to change the functions in usb.c with a depper adaptation to accommodate drivers for devices with more than a single control endpoint but for now endpoint[0] should work.
How is this array populated?
The default pipe always accepts control transfers, but is it automatically populated to index 0 in the endpoints array? Note that the default pipe does not usually show up in any descriptor.
There are some issues in the following code:
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ set_feature (usbdev_t *dev, int endp, int feature, int rtype)
- dev->controller->control (&dev->endpoints[endp], OUT, sizeof (dr), &dr, 0, 0);
This is good. (Or is it? Is endp specified in the API to be the index, and not the endpoint number?)
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ get_status (usbdev_t *dev, int intf, int rtype, int len, void *data)
- dev->controller->control (&dev->endpoints[intf], IN, sizeof (dr), &dr, len, data);
Here an interface number is suddenly used as index in the endpoints array. Please explain how that can be correct?
@@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ get_descriptor (usbdev_t *dev, unsigned char bmRequestType, int descType,
- endpoint_t *ep = &dev->endpoints[langID];
Here langID is used as index in the endpoints array. That also seems like it will be a problem.
@@ -141,7 +142,7 @@ get_descriptor (usbdev_t *dev, unsigned char bmRequestType, int descType,
- if (dev->controller->control (ep, IN, sizeof (dr), &dr, 8, buf)) {
Where does this ep come from?
@@ -165,7 +166,7 @@ get_descriptor (usbdev_t *dev, unsigned char bmRequestType, int descType,
control (ep, IN, sizeof (dr), &dr, size, result)) {
Same one..
@@ -183,7 +184,7 @@ set_configuration (usbdev_t *dev)
- dev->controller->control (&dev->endpoints[0], OUT, sizeof (dr), &dr, 0, 0);
Is index 0 in endpoints guaranteed to always be the default endpoint?
@@ -201,7 +202,7 @@ clear_stall (endpoint_t *ep)
- dev->controller->control (ep, OUT, sizeof (dr), &dr, 0, 0);
Good.
@@ -246,7 +247,7 @@ set_address (hci_t *controller, int lowspeed)
- if (dev->controller->control (&dev->endpoints[0], OUT, sizeof (dr), &dr, 0, 0)) {
Again with index 0. And it happens a few more times.
//Peter