Hi Felipe,

On 13 October 2016 at 19:23, Felipe Balbi <ba...@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> Baolin Wang <baolin.w...@linaro.org> writes:
>>>> Baolin Wang <baolin.w...@linaro.org> writes:
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking this is a bug in configfs interface of Gadget API, not
>>>>>>>> dwc3. The only reason for this to happen would be if we get to
>>>>>>>> ->udc_stop() with endpoints still enabled.
>>>>>>>> Can you check if that's the case? i.e. can you check if any endpoints
>>>>>>>> are still enabled when we get here?
>>>>>>> No, it is not any endpoints are still enabled. Like I said in commit
>>>>>>> message, we will start end transfer command when disable the endpoint,
>>>>>>> if the end transfer command complete event comes after we have freed
>>>>>>> the gadget irq, it will trigger the interrupt line all the time to
>>>>>>> crash the system.
>>>>>> I see what the problem is. Databook tells us we *must* set CMDIOC when
>>>>>> issuing EndTransfer command and we should always wait for Command
>>>>>> Complete IRQ. However, we took a shortcut and just delayed for 100us
>>>>>> after issuing End Transfer.
>>>>> Yes, but 100us delay is not enough in some scenarios, like changing
>>>>> function with configfs frequently, we will met problems.
>>>> heh, 100us *is* enough. However we still get an IRQ because we requested
>>>> for it. If you want to fix this, then you need to find a way to get rid
>>>> of that 100us udelay() and add a proper wait_for_completion() to delay
>>>> execution until command complete IRQ fires up.
>>> I haven't tested this yet, but it shows the idea (I think we might still
>>> have a race with ep_queue if we're still waiting for End Transfer, but
>> Yes, maybe we need check DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING flag when
>> queuing one request.
> Yeah, I'll add that check later. I still need to make sure we would
> still try to kick any transfers that might have been queued while
> waiting for End Transfer Command Complete IRQ.

OK. But I still worried if there are other races in some places which
is not easy to find out by testing. No introducing race condition
would be one better solution, anyway I would like to test the patch
you send out firstly.

>>> that's easy to sort out by checking for DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING
>>> before calling kick_transfer). Could you have a look and, perhaps, run a
>>> test?
>> Sure. I will test it and send out the result tomorrow.
> Thank you
> --
> balbi

Best Regards
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to