Hi,
(guys, please make sure to break lines at 80-columns)
Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> writes:
>>>>> @@ -2853,6 +2852,23 @@ static irqreturn_t dwc3_interrupt(int irq, void *_evt)
>>>>> int dwc3_gadget_init(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>>>> {
>>>>> int ret;
>>>>> + struct resource *res;
>>>>> + struct platform_device *dwc3_pdev = to_platform_device(dwc->dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dwc->irq_gadget = platform_get_irq_byname(dwc3_pdev, "peripheral");
>>>>> + if (dwc->irq_gadget <= 0) {
>>>>
>>>> Is it expected to get -EPROBE_DEFER here?
>>>
>>> Probably not as we don't have any chance of deferring probe here. We've already
>>> probed successfully and are just turning on the gadget mode here.
>>
>> In general, you can't say that you've been probed successfully if not
>> all resources are ready, and irq is a resource :) It's expected that
>> all resources will be requested in probe, but here you are trying to
>> get resource outside of probe. As result, it will be perfectly
>> possible to get -EPROBE_DEFER here if on some HW GPIO IRQ will be
>> used as peripheral, or host or otg irq (for example), because GPIO
>> IRQ controller might not be ready at the moment when IRQ resource is
>> requested.
>
> I agree with you.
>
> Felipe, are you ok with moving the IRQ resource obtaining code to probe?
You mean that probe() would setup all gadget_irq, otg_irq and host_irq
while the other pieces (otg.c, gadget.c and host.c) only use it?
yeah, that should be fine. No problems.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
