> From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:14 AM
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 08:35:40PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 05:47:53PM -0700, Paul Zimmerman wrote:
> > > Previously, when an active urb was dequeued, its host channel woul
From: Matthijs Kooijman
Previously, when an active urb was dequeued, its host channel would
not always be released. There is some special handling for this in
dwc2_hc_chhltd_intr_dma, but when it was the last urb/qtd in its qh, a
safeguard in dwc2_hc_n_intr would short-circuit and prevent the reg
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 08:35:40PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 05:47:53PM -0700, Paul Zimmerman wrote:
> > Previously, when an active urb was dequeued, its host channel would
> > not always be released. There is some special handling for this in
> > dwc2_hc_chhltd_intr_dma,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 05:47:53PM -0700, Paul Zimmerman wrote:
> Previously, when an active urb was dequeued, its host channel would
> not always be released. There is some special handling for this in
> dwc2_hc_chhltd_intr_dma, but when it was the last urb/qtd in its qh, a
> safeguard in dwc2_hc_
Previously, when an active urb was dequeued, its host channel would
not always be released. There is some special handling for this in
dwc2_hc_chhltd_intr_dma, but when it was the last urb/qtd in its qh, a
safeguard in dwc2_hc_n_intr would short-circuit and prevent the regular
interrupt handlers fr
