From e598e28401bb25d4d639b29f297a549badbf0cfa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 12:17:48 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] ehci: Correct a comment in fetchqtd packet processing

Since my previous comment said "Should never happen", I tried changing the
next line to an assert(0), which did not go well, which as the new comments
explains is logical if you think about it for a moment.

Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit cf1f81691d1998fa8fe5bfcb8b498fb3723cf3c3)

Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 hw/usb/hcd-ehci.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hw/usb/hcd-ehci.c b/hw/usb/hcd-ehci.c
index 2534394..2f3e9c0 100644
--- a/hw/usb/hcd-ehci.c
+++ b/hw/usb/hcd-ehci.c
@@ -2045,7 +2045,10 @@ static int ehci_state_fetchqtd(EHCIQueue *q)
             ehci_set_state(q->ehci, q->async, EST_HORIZONTALQH);
             break;
         case EHCI_ASYNC_FINISHED:
-            /* Should never happen, as this case is caught by fetchqh */
+            /*
+             * We get here when advqueue moves to a packet which is already
+             * finished, which can happen with packets queued up by fill_queue
+             */
             ehci_set_state(q->ehci, q->async, EST_EXECUTING);
             break;
         }
-- 
1.7.12.1