On 07/19/2012 03:22 PM, Gupta, Ajay Kumar wrote:
>>> There is no need to call read_fifo for zero byte length.
>> The same as there's no need to write, and not only here?
> Yes, it applies to write also but seems write is taken care
> for zero byte length.
Frankly speaking, I don't see it. And what about non-0 endpoints?
>>> Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar Gupta <ajay.gu...@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget_ep0.c | 6 ++++--
>>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget_ep0.c
>> b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget_ep0.c
>>> index e40d764..d762ddb 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget_ep0.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget_ep0.c
>>> @@ -505,8 +505,10 @@ static void ep0_rxstate(struct musb *musb)
>>> req->status = -EOVERFLOW;
>>> count = len;
>>> }
>>> - musb_read_fifo(&musb->endpoints[0], count, buf);
>>> - req->actual += count;
>>> + if (count) {
>>> + musb_read_fifo(&musb->endpoints[0], count, buf);
>>> + req->actual += count;
>>> + }
>> Does it save much?
> We do save some instruction and that's good to have.
Wouldn't it be better to check for zero count inside musb_{read|write}_fifo()
though?
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
