Hi Felipe,
On 9 September 2016 at 19:03, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>> index 057739d..22787b6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>> @@ -999,6 +999,7 @@ static int dwc3_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> goto err0;
>>
>> spin_lock_init(&dwc->lock);
>> + init_completion(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>
> this should be done only when gadget is required; meaning that this
> should be moved to dwc3_gadget_init()
OK.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>> index b2317e7..858e661 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -843,6 +844,7 @@ struct dwc3 {
>> dma_addr_t ep0_bounce_addr;
>> dma_addr_t scratch_addr;
>> struct dwc3_request ep0_usb_req;
>> + struct completion ep0_completed;
>
> when you call this "ep0_completed" it seems like you're defining a flag,
> but you're not :) How about "ep0_in_setup" instead? That conveys the
> idea that we're waiting for ep0 to reach setup phase.
Make sense and will change it.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> index 632e5a4..baf932d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> @@ -286,6 +286,7 @@ static void dwc3_ep0_stall_and_restart(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>
>> dwc->ep0state = EP0_SETUP_PHASE;
>> dwc3_ep0_out_start(dwc);
>> + complete(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>
> no, this is wrong. I see what you're trying to do here, but we don't
> want to duplicate this call to complete() right? One thing we can
> realize is that *always* after STATUS phase or after a STALL, we will go
> through dwc3_ep0_out_start(), this mean we can call complete() before
> starting the following SETUP phase.
>
> Single place to call complete() ;-)
Make sense to me and I will fix that in next version.
>
>> 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.
> 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.
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
