* Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> [161104 07:16]: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 02:26:35PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > OK. Sorry for the delay responding, had my motherboard fail > > over the weekend.. > > Ouch. Hope the recovery process wasn't too painful. Only the usual scratches on my knuckles :) > > > How about using a work struct and synchronous get for the deferred case? > > > > Here's the patch updated to use the existing finish_resume_work. > > Is that along the lines you were thinking? > > Along those lines, yes, but I'm not sure about reusing > finish_resume_work currently used to deassert resume signalling only. OK I'll drop the changes for the other ones. Those can be then combined later as needed once we're done with fixes. > If work is already queued it seems you could end up deasserting resume > prematurely for example. It currently also add unnecessary latency to > other deferred work. Yeah good point so best to keep this one strictly limited to resume work. > You also forgot to queue musb_host_finish_resume() from > musb_port_suspend() which looks like it would break port resume. Oh OK will take a look. Might be best to leave that one out that change for now. > > + struct musb_pending_work *w; > > + unsigned long flags; > > + > > + if (!callback) > > + return; > > WARN_ON (e.g. in case someone switches the arguments)? Sure. Will fix also your other comments and make it into a more minimal patch for fixes. Regards, Tony -- 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
