Thanks Alan ! Just sent out the v7 of the series after fixing all other comments.

Regards, Badhri

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 8:27 AM Alan Stern stern@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:

On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:17:04PM -0700, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:

...

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 11:26 AM Alan Stern stern@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:

...

...

@@ -756,10 +772,12 @@ int usb_gadget_disconnect(struct usb_gadget

*gadget)

...

  if (!gadget->connected)
          goto out;

• if (gadget->deactivated) {
  

• if (gadget->deactivated || !gadget->udc->started) {
  

Do you really need to add this extra test? After all, if the gadget isn't started then how could the previous test of gadget->connected possibly succeed?

In fact, I suspect this entire section of code was always useless, since the gadget couldn't be connected now if it was already deactivated.

Thanks Alan ! Will fix all other comments in v7 but not sure about this one. Although the ->pullup() function will not be called, -> connected flag could actually be set when the gadget is not started.

• if (gadget->deactivated || !gadget->udc->allow_connect) {

• if (gadget->deactivated || !gadget->udc->allow_connect ||

!gadget->udc->started) { /*

• If gadget is deactivated we only save new state.
• Gadget will be connected automatically after activation.

• • udc first needs to be started before gadget can be pulled up.
  */ gadget->connected = true;

This could happen, for instance, when usb_udc_vbus_handler() is invoked after soft_connect_store() disconnects the gadget. Same applies to when usb_gadget_connect() is called after the gadget has been deactivated through usb_gadget_deactivate().

This implies that the checks should be there, right ?

Yes, you're right; the checks do need to be there. I had forgotten about these possible cases. Ignore that comment.

Alan Stern