Hi,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> 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?
>> 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 :-)
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
