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:   Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
To:     Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
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()
In-Reply-To: <87a7rdlup1.fsf@belgarion.home>
References: <20180620035453.7721-1-baijiaju1990@gmail.com> <87efh0o6f9.fsf@belgarion.home> <87y3eydrs1.fsf@linux.intel.com> <87efgqkrzl.fsf@belgarion.home> <87k1qhevpd.fsf@linux.intel.com> <87a7rdlup1.fsf@belgarion.home>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:15:19 +0300
Message-ID: <87bmbtetdk.fsf@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Hi,

Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> writes:
>>> And as bonus question, why is it better to have mdelay() calls in the driver ?
>>
>> As a bugfix, it's the smallest fix possible, right? Ideally, we wouldn't
>> need either of them. Perhaps there's a bit which can be polled instead?
> Ideally yes. Do you remember if a "threaded interrupt" might use msleep() ? I
> seem to remember that they can, so won't that be another alternative ?

yeah, unless, of course, you have a spinlock held. ;-)

-- 
balbi