[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH V4] usb: gadget: bcm63xx UDC driver

To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] usb: gadget: bcm63xx UDC driver
From: Kevin Cernekee <>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:35:13 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BJqF+a6jPwuhHTeLuz2sATmHcRWhoQhVeF0RU//o1SA=; b=Gsj72DNhS2Q1C+WWAISRjYuVzGmhjoaSkok7e+nwqbpx6JH5Umsp7xdHDxamJa5nXj kDW8CdbXPzrAdZO+izUFmrOfsE95goxrFhD3SxilfItijMqpHmKgGAfu+yvd2hopoXN8 MllmBoPu1yJJpK27QNQUAsYboyXEphw1EVFdsELe/SCIcXYH9cPqvYObnNCwNYkU3s6i oKyaSDaJY641dzC8G3WT+gNFVh7yIu5rCns5YeQk8dfFZQfJgNHR5vobEp7bcYSmmVh/ x3QZeql5oMomRcJ7MxXNBTMFwSHHnKMn83hRLJDSq29raDgf6GVtPjOuBpBahAytYJxe t3sg==
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
References: <2e70dcfde41aee0d733449013ac80ace@localhost> <>
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > One
little question: Felipe suggested to replace the workqueue by a
> interrupt. You schedule the workqueue in interrupt context and once in ep0
> enqueue. The enqueue should be fine by executing one round and waiting for the
> interrupt. Any reason why you suggested against it?

A couple of rounds could pass with no interrupt, e.g. if a
SET_CONFIGURATION request and a SET_INTERFACE request are both

Also, I ran into deadlocks when trying to invoke the gadget driver's
callback from within the UDC enqueue function.

I did attempt it; V2 of the patch had the workqueue removed, but I
backed out the change for V3 after seeing so many problems.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>