On 5/23/2014 8:14 PM, Daniele Forsi wrote:
2014-05-23 8:32 GMT+02:00 Amit Virdi:
@@ -124,6 +130,9 @@ get_endpoints(struct usbtest_dev *dev, struct usb_interface
*intf)
switch (usb_endpoint_type(&e->desc)) {
case USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_BULK:
break;
+ case USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_INT:
+ if (dev->info->intr)
+ goto try_intr;
case USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_ISOC:
if (dev->info->iso)
goto try_iso;
@@ -139,6 +148,15 @@ get_endpoints(struct usbtest_dev *dev, struct
usb_interface *intf)
I don't think you really mean to fall through to case
USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_ISOC if the test is false, but the logic of that
I do mean to fall through to check whether the EP is ISOC type if it
isn't INTERRUPT.
for-loop is becoming harder to follow
in pseudo code, the switch statement is like this?
case USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_BULK:
set in or out;
break;
case USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_INT:
set int_in or int_out;
break;
case USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_ISOC:
set iso_in or iso_out;
break;
default:
do nothing;
it would be easier to follow even if it adds and indentation level
I do agree that the goto statements don't look visually pleasing here,
but the approach you suggested would end up in upto 7 levels of
indentation and that would make the code look even more ugly (see below
sample code snippet)
---
for (tmp = 0; tmp < intf->num_altsetting; tmp++) {
unsigned ep;
.
.
.
for (ep = 0; ep < alt->desc.bNumEndpoints; ep++) {
struct usb_host_endpoint *e;
e = alt->endpoint + ep;
switch (usb_endpoint_type(&e->desc)) {
.
.
.
case USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_INT:
if (dev->info->intr) {
if usb_endpoint_dir_in(&e->desc) {
if (!int_in)
int_in = e;
}
else {
if (!int_out)
int_out = e;
}
}
break;
.
.
.
.
---
--
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
