Hi,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 13 October 2016 at 15:08, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> @@ -1487,10 +1496,22 @@ static int dwc3_gadget_pullup(struct usb_gadget *g, int is_on)
>>>
>>> is_on = !!is_on;
>>>
>>> +try_again:
>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&dwc->lock, flags);
>>> ret = dwc3_gadget_run_stop(dwc, is_on, false);
>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dwc->lock, flags);
>>>
>>> + if (ret == -EBUSY) {
>>> + ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&dwc->ep0_in_setup,
>>> + msecs_to_jiffies(500));
>>> + if (ret == 0) {
>>> + dev_err(dwc->dev, "timeout to stop gadget.\n");
>>> + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> + } else {
>>> + goto try_again;
>>
>> you are not really reading my comments. It's the third time I tell you
>> there's no need for try_again. If you can't complete a control transfer
>> in 500ms, you already have other issues. Take this thing out of here.
>
> I think you misunderstood the code. If there is 500ms timeout, we will
> return '-ETIMEDOUT' error. If the control transfer is completed before
> timeout, we can not just return and we need try again to stop the
> gadget, right? Any other good suggestion? Thanks.
Yeah, change the patch a bit so you wait for completion before calling
dwc3_gadget_runt_stop()? I mean, move the !is_on && ep0_state check
before calling dwc3_gadget_run_stop() and wait_for_completion_timeout()
there.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
