Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] usb: dwc3: gadget: Skip endpoints ep[18]{in,out} on Intel Merrifield

Andy Shevchenko
2025-01-28T16:51:00Z

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 02:21:40AM +0000, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:46:17PM +0000, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 11:39:42PM +0000, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > > > + * Intel Merrifield uses these endpoints for tracing and they shouldn't be used
> > > > > > + * for normal transfers, we need to skip them.
> > > > > > + * • 1 High BW Bulk IN (IN#1) (RTIT)
> > > > > > + * • 1 1KB BW Bulk IN (IN#8) + 1 1KB BW Bulk OUT (Run Control) (OUT#8)
> > > > >
> > > > > Please use regular bullet character and list the endpoint per line.
> > > >
> > > > Which is...?
> > > >
> > > > To my curiosity, what's wrong with the above?
> > >
> > > Please use a character that we can find on the keyboard (- or * for
> > > example).
> >
> > Hmm... We can find all characters on keyboard by using standard approach of
> > typing Unicode ones. I'm not sure why this is a problem. Linux kernel is UTF-8
> > ready project (from source tree point of view), at least I haven't found any
> > limitations in the documentation.
> >
> > Note, this is _not_ a kernel-doc style to which you may refer when pointing out
>
> I'm not requesting this out of any kernel-doc style. It's just a
> personal preference and consistency in dwc3. If it's not too difficult,
> please use "-".

As I said...

> But if you must insist, future lists would need to be
> consistent to this new unicode style. Then I would need to ask others to
> use the new Unicode one. Typically typing * doesn't automatically
> convert to • unless you edit using Word, and so I prefer something I and
> others can easily find on the keyboard.
>
> > to the how lists should be represented.
> >
> > But it's not big deal for me to change the • character.

...not a big deal to me, I will change as requested.

> > > And why would you want to list them like this:
> > >
> > > * Endpoint A
> > > * Endpoint B + Endpoint C
> >
> > Because:
> > 1) they are logically connected;
> > 2) the above is the exact citation from the specification and I would like to
> > keep it that way.
> >
> > > As oppose to:
> > >
> > > * Endpoint A
> > > * Endpoint B
> > > * Endpoint C
>
> If you prefer to keep the snippet of your vendor specification intact,
> we can instead document this fully in the commit message and note the
> EBC feature. Remove these comments here.

I prefer to have a comment to explain magic numbers. I just want it to be
as closer as possible to the specification wording.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko