Hi Balbi,

On 23/08/16 12:01, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Felipe Ferreri Tonello <eu@felipetonello.com> writes:
>>> "Felipe F. Tonello" <eu@felipetonello.com> writes:
>>>> The default_length parameter of alloc_ep_req was not really necessary
>>>> and gadget drivers would almost always create an inline function to pass
>>>> the same value to len and default_len.
>>>>
>>>> So this patch also removes duplicate code from few drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe F. Tonello <eu@felipetonello.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_hid.c        | 10 ++--------
>>>>  drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_loopback.c   |  9 +--------
>>>>  drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_midi.c       | 10 ++--------
>>>>  drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_sourcesink.c | 11 ++---------
>>>>  drivers/usb/gadget/u_f.c                   |  7 +++----
>>>>  drivers/usb/gadget/u_f.h                   |  3 +--
>>>>  6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_hid.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_hid.c
>>>> index 51980c50546d..e82a7468252e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_hid.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_hid.c
>>>> @@ -362,12 +362,6 @@ static int f_hidg_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *fd)
>>>>  /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>>>>  /*                                usb_function                             */
>>>>  
>>>> -static inline struct usb_request *hidg_alloc_ep_req(struct usb_ep *ep,
>>>> -						    unsigned length)
>>>> -{
>>>> -	return alloc_ep_req(ep, length, length);
>>>> -}
>>>
>>> actually, I prefer to keep these little helpers. I was recently playing
>>> with adding SG list support to g_zero (I should have patches soon) and
>>> it was actually very nice to have the sourcesink helper as I could just
>>> ditch alloc_ep_req(). The change to the driver was local to
>>> ss_alloc_ep_req() and nothing else changed :-)
>>>
>>
>> Right, but then it is worth to have the helper function. In this
>> particular case, I am removing a useless helper functions, especially
>> that the previous patch removes the need for the optional parameter in
>> alloc_ep_req.
> 
> it's a static inline :-) It won't do any bad to keep it. And, as I said,
> if we want to ditch aloc_ep_req() eventually, then we have just one
> place to patch ;-)

Yes, sure. But why drop alloc_ep_req()?

So should I keep all these helper functions? If so, I actually still
need to fix them to use the newer alloc_ep_req() API.

-- 
Felipe