On 2022-08-29 21:47:41 [+0000], Thinh Nguyen wrote: > Ok. Maybe we should make a change in the target_execute_cmd() then. It > seems unreasonable to force the caller to workaround this such as the > wait+complete construct you did (and I don't recall we have changes in > place to know/guarantee that interrupts are enabled before executing > target_execute_cmd() previously either). Sounds reasonable. Back then I wasn't sure if I'm putting all the puzzle pieces correctly together so I preferred this over a target change I wasn't sure was really needed. Anyway. > For the dwc3, we masked the interrupt at this point, so interrupt won't > be asserted here. dwc3 has a irqrestore() after calling the routine so that will avoid the splat. But lockdep should yell here. Anyway, other interrupts on that CPU (timer for instance) could trigger. > Thanks, > Thinh Sebastian
