On Sunday 06 December 2009, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > I may modify the locking model of pxa27x_udc : whenether I call the gadget > complete() method, I relax the ep->lock, and take it just after. That makes me a > bit nervous, but I'll do it if this is the thing to do. > > David, could you give me the point of view of the gadget architecture please ? Dropping the lock before complete() is exactly the right thing to do. But make sure your ep_queue() method understands that sometimes it's only supposed to *queue* and not activate tx/rx. So the IRQ handler sets some "don't touch the hardware" flag before it drops that lock, reentrant queue() sees it, complete() returns with the only change being queue updates ... and before the IRQ handler returns, it looks to see if there's work to be done on that EP. Most UDC drivers don't have hardware queues to worry about, so the completion callback should also be able to dequeue() requests that aren't yet being handled by the HW ... another nuance, but one that won't usually mean extra work. - Dave -- 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
