On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:38:27 +0200 Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > 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 ?
What for? Apparently the keypress is processed in usb_kbd_irq_worker. So checking the return value is needed to decide if the worker should run, and is not particularly useful outside usb_kbd_poll_for_event. We could signal a getc() failure but do we have any code handling getc() failures? Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
