On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 3:55 PM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 03:40:26PM -0700, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:55 AM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 04:02:02AM +0000, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote: > > > > usb_udc_connect_control() does not check to see if the udc has already > > > > been started. This causes gadget->ops->pullup to be called through > > > > usb_gadget_connect() when invoked from usb_udc_vbus_handler() even > > > > before usb_gadget_udc_start() is called. Guard this by checking for > > > > udc->started in usb_udc_connect_control() before invoking > > > > usb_gadget_connect(). > > > > > > After a merged version of patches 1/3 and 3/3 have been applied, it > > > seems like most of this will not be needed any more. Maybe not any of > > > it. > > > > Without the connect_lock introduced in this patch, wouldn't the > > usb_gadget_connect()/ > > usb_gadget_disconnect() through soft_connect_store() race against > > usb_gadget_connect()/ usb_gadget_disconnect() through > > usb_udc_connect_control() ? > > Okay, yes, that's a good point. It needs to be mentioned in the patch > description so that people will understand it is the real reason for > this change. Thanks Alan ! I had posted the v6 version of the series with 1/3 and 3/3 of v5 squashed together. I have made changes to address your concerns in v5. Instead of adding a new lock, I used the connect_lock in this patch to protect the allow_connect flag. Eager to know your thoughts ! Regards, Badhri > > Alan Stern
