Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752600AbcJMIBz (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 04:01:55 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f181.google.com ([209.85.161.181]:34813 "EHLO mail-yw0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751991AbcJMIBq (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 04:01:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87fuo0vg35.fsf@linux.intel.com> References: <521625dd7f5e335e2a681ec65ebffc5832207e5f.1475570367.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org> <0e1e7e00e3e2aacf0fe0ee91854e6a0ee81cc320.1475570367.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org> <87lgxsvi7v.fsf@linux.intel.com> <87fuo0vg35.fsf@linux.intel.com> From: Baolin Wang Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:01:45 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/2] usb: dwc3: Wait for control tranfer completed when stopping gadget To: Felipe Balbi Cc: Greg KH , Mark Brown , USB , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1810 Lines: 55 On 13 October 2016 at 15:54, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > Baolin Wang writes: >> Hi, >> >> On 13 October 2016 at 15:08, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Baolin Wang 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. OK. I will refactor the patch. Thanks. > > -- > balbi -- Baolin.wang Best Regards