Hi,
I have a question on
libopencm3-examples\examples\stm32\f1\lisa-m-1\usb_hid\usbhid.c .
It defines
static enum usbd_request_return_codes dfu_control_request(
usbd_device *dev, struct usb_setup_data *req, uint8_t **buf, uint16_t *len,
void (**complete)(usbd_device *dev, struct usb_setup_data *req))
{
(void)buf;
(void)len;
(void)dev;
if ((req->bmRequestType != 0x21) || (req->bRequest != DFU_DETACH))
return USBD_REQ_NOTSUPP; /* Only accept class request. */
*complete = dfu_detach_complete;
return USBD_REQ_HANDLED;
}
Which is registered in USBD using
usbd_register_control_callback(
dev,
USB_REQ_TYPE_CLASS | USB_REQ_TYPE_INTERFACE,
USB_REQ_TYPE_TYPE | USB_REQ_TYPE_RECIPIENT,
dfu_control_request);
My question is, why does dfu_control_request() check bmRequestType with
"if ((req->bmRequestType != 0x21)" ?
usb_control_request_dispatch() filters requests on the registered request-type
using
"if ((req->bmRequestType & cb[i].type_mask) == cb[i].type)"
So the check in dfu_control_request() is redundant and just confusing for the
reader.
It would be nice if the callback typedefs in
libopencm3/include/libopencm3/usb/usbd.h
Had the same kind of doxygen declaration as the other functions. This would most
Likely eliminate these kind of misunderstandings of what the presumptions of
the callback was.
Kind regards
Mats Webjörn
Tel +46 8 584 238 80 Webjörn IngenjörsKonsult AB
Mobil +46 70 639 16 99 Solhemsbackarna 75A
SE-163 56 SPÅNGA
Sweden
_______________________________________________
libopencm3-devel mailing list
libopencm3-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libopencm3-devel
