Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: bcm63xx UDC driver

[Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 08:48:11PM -0700, Kevin Cernekee wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
>> > no workqueues, please either handle the IRQ here or use threaded_irqs.
>> >
>> > again, no workqueues.
>>
>> Felipe,
>>
>> I am seeing all sorts of deadlocks now, after removing the workqueue
>> (patch V2).  Some have easy fixes, but for others it is not as
>> obvious.  The code was much simpler when I could just trigger a
>> deferred worker function.
>>
>> Workqueues are used in at91_udc, lpc32xx_udc, mv_udc_core, and
>> pch_udc.  Could you please clarify why it is not OK to use one in
>> bcm63xx_udc?
>
> Because threaded_irqs were added in order to drop such workqueues.
> threaded_irqs also have the highest priority possible (only lower than
> hardirq handlers), so you'll get scheduled much sooner.
>
> Could it be that most of your deadlocks is because you're not setting
> IRQF_ONESHOT ?

The deadlocks involve ep0 processing that is triggered through
bcm63xx_udc_queue().  e.g. gadget driver queues a new request, it's a
reply to a spoofed SET_CONFIGURATION / SET_INTERFACE transaction, and
the UDC driver calls the completion immediately.

So, not all of the ep0 work is being done in response to an IRQ from
the controller HW, and I think that is where this driver diverges from
most of the others.

Would it be OK to use a workqueue, or maybe a tasklet, given these
circumstances?

Thanks.