Hi, Baolin Wang writes: >>> (One possible approach would be to have the setup routine return >>> different values for explicit and implicit status stages -- for >>> example, return 1 if it wants to submit an explicit status request. >>> That wouldn't be very different from the current >>> USB_GADGET_DELAYED_STATUS approach.) >> >> not really, no. The idea was for composite.c and/or functions to support >> both methods (temporarily) and use "gadget->wants_explicit_stages" to >> explicitly queue DATA and STATUS. That would mean that f_mass_storage >> wouldn't have to return DELAYED_STATUS if >> (gadget->wants_explicit_stages). >> >> After all UDCs are converted over and set wants_explicit_stages (which >> should all be done in a single series), then we get rid of the flag and >> the older method of DELAYED_STATUS. > > (Sorry for late reply due to my holiday) > I also met the problem pointed by Alan, from my test, I still want to > need one return value to indicate if it wants to submit an explicit > status request. Think about the Control-IN with a data stage, we can > not get the STATUS phase request from usb_ep_queue() call, and we need why not? wLength tells you that this is a 3-stage transfer. Gadget driver should be able to figure out that it needs to usb_ep_queue() another request for status stage. > to handle this STATUS phase request in dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(). But > Control-OUT will get one 0-length IN request for the status stage from > usb_ep_queue(), so we need one return value from setup routine to no we don't :-) > distinguish these in dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(), or we can not handle > status request correctly. Maybe I missed something else. >> >>> On the other hand, I am very doubtful about requiring explicit setup >>> requests. >> >> right, me too ;-) > > So do you suggest me continue to try to do this? Thanks. explicit setup? no explicit status? yes If you don't wanna do it, it's fine :-) I'll just add to my TODO list. It just depends on how much other tasks you have on your end ;-) -- balbi