Hi Felipe,
On 19 September 2016 at 17:58, Felipe Balbi <ba...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang <baolin.w...@linaro.org> writes:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>>> index 1a33308..c9026ce 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>>> @@ -1441,6 +1441,15 @@ static int dwc3_gadget_run_stop(struct dwc3 *dwc,
>>>> int is_on, int suspend)
>>>> if (pm_runtime_suspended(dwc->dev))
>>>> return 0;
>>>>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Per databook, when we want to stop the gadget, if a control
>>>> transfer
>>>> + * is still in process, complete it and get the core into setup
>>>> phase.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (!is_on && dwc->ep0state != EP0_SETUP_PHASE) {
>>>> + reinit_completion(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>>>
>>> this seems unnecessary to me. Also, why return here so the caller has to
>>
>> We should re-init the completion due to it will complete control
>> transfer many times before we try to stop gadget.
>
> not sure I get this comment, care to furter explain what you mean?
Sorry for confusing comment. What I mean is it will issue
'complete(&dwc->ep0_completed)' when one control transfer is
completed, and it will increase the completion->done when every
'complete()' function is issued.
If there are seveal control transfers are completed (completion->done
is not 0 bow) and dwc->ep0state is not in EP0_SETUP_PHASE satus when
we want to stop gadget, then we should wait for completion. If we
don't call 'reinit_completion(&dwc->ep0_completed)' (it will reset
completion->done as 0 ), it will not wait for 500ms in
wait_for_completion_timeout() funtion. Hope I make it clear.
>
>>> wait? You could just have called wait_for_completion() here straight
>>> away:
>>>
>>> if (!is_on && dwc->ep0state != EP0_SETUP_PHASE) {
>>> /* should this be interruptible? */
>>> ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&dwc->ep0_in_setup,
>>> msecs_to_jiffies(500));
>>> if (ret == 0) {
>>> dwc3_trace(trace_dwc3_gadget, "RUN/STOP timeout");
>>> return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> There's also no need for that "try_again" trickery. We either can halt
>>> the controller within 500ms or we cannot.
>>
>> But this is in atomic context and we can not issue
>> wait_for_completion_timeout() in atomic context, then we should just
>> return here.
>
> heh, good point. Missed that :-)
OK:)
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
