Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
To:     Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        nicolas.ferre@microchip.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        allen.lkml@gmail.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: gadget: r8a66597: Fix two possible sleep-in-atomic-context bugs in init_controller()
References: <20180620035453.7721-1-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
        <87efh0o6f9.fsf@belgarion.home> <87y3eydrs1.fsf@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:48:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87y3eydrs1.fsf@linux.intel.com> (Felipe Balbi's message of "Fri,
        29 Jun 2018 09:35:10 +0300")
Message-ID: <87efgqkrzl.fsf@belgarion.home>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> writes:
>
>> Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> The driver may sleep with holding a spinlock.
>>> The function call paths (from bottom to top) in Linux-4.16.7 are:
>>>
>>> [FUNC] msleep
>>> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/r8a66597-udc.c, 839: 
>>> 		msleep in init_controller
>>> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/r8a66597-udc.c, 96: 
>>> 		init_controller in r8a66597_usb_disconnect
>>> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/r8a66597-udc.c, 93: 
>>> 		spin_lock in r8a66597_usb_disconnect
>>
>> That should not happen...
>>
>> If think the issue you have is that your usb_connect() and usb_disconnect() are
>> called from interrupt context. I think the proper fix, as what is done in most
>> udc phys, is to schedule a workqueue, see drivers/usb/phy/phy-gpio-vbus-usb.c,
>> gpio_vbus_data.vbus.
>
> argh, no. No workqueues needed here. Sorry
Technically why ?

And as bonus question, why is it better to have mdelay() calls in the driver ?

Cheers.

-- 
Robert