Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 18:26:16 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Should xhci_irq() call usb_hc_died()?
Message-ID: <20161210002616.GA8381@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 551
Lines: 26

Hi Mathias,

ehci_irq(), ohci_irq(), fotg210_irq(), and oxu210_hcd_irq() contain code
equivalent to this:

  status = ehci_readl(...);
  if (status == ~(u32) 0) {
    ...
    usb_hc_died(hcd);
    ...
    return IRQ_HANDLED;
  }

xhci_irq() has a similar check, but does not call usb_hc_died():

  status = readl(...);
  if (status = 0xffffffff) {
    ...
    return IRQ_HANDLED;
  }

Should xhci_irq() also call usb_hc_died()?  Maybe there's some reason
for it to be different than the others, but it wasn't obvious to this
casual observer :)

Bjorn