On 7/2/19 7:50 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:58:54 +0200 > Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > >> On 7/2/19 4:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote: >>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:11:07 +0200 >>> Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/2/19 3:04 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:58:30 +0200 >>>>> Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/1/19 5:56 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote: >>>>>>> Causes unbound key repeat on error otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <msucha...@suse.de> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> common/usb_kbd.c | 7 +++---- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/common/usb_kbd.c b/common/usb_kbd.c >>>>>>> index cc99c6be0720..948f9fd68490 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/common/usb_kbd.c >>>>>>> +++ b/common/usb_kbd.c >>>>>>> @@ -339,10 +339,9 @@ static inline void usb_kbd_poll_for_event(struct >>>>>>> usb_device *dev) >>>>>>> struct usb_kbd_pdata *data = dev->privptr; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /* Submit a interrupt transfer request */ >>>>>>> - usb_submit_int_msg(dev, data->intpipe, &data->new[0], >>>>>>> data->intpktsize, >>>>>>> - data->intinterval); >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> - usb_kbd_irq_worker(dev); >>>>>>> + if (!usb_submit_int_msg(dev, data->intpipe, &data->new[0], >>>>>> >>>>>> Shouldn't you propagate return value from this function ? It can return >>>>>> ENOTSUPP. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If it did then probing keyboard would fail and we would not get here. >>>> >>>> So there is no chance this function could return an error here, ever ? >>>> E.g. what if it's implemented and someone yanks the keyboard cable out >>>> just at the right time ? >>> >>> It returns errors all the time with dwc2. That's why we need to check >>> for the error condition. We should not get here if probing the keyboard >>> failed, though. So if the function is not supported we will not get >>> here. Anyway, if it's not supported or the keyboard is missing it by >>> definition cannot provide useful result so we should not process it. >> >> Except you start ignoring the error value from e.g. malfunctioning >> keyboard here, instead of propagating it, correct ? > > It was never propagated to start with. The return value was not checked > at all. What I do here is check the return value and not process the > data on error whatever it contains (like the keypress returned last > time valid data was received).
I can see a patch which checks usb_kbd_poll_for_event() return value. Can you add one ? And then propagate the usb_submit_int_msg() return value too. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-56 Email: ma...@denx.de _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
