Re: [PATCH 2/2] gadget: Support for the usb charger framework

[Baolin Wang]

On 7 August 2015 at 17:07, Peter Chen <Peter.Chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >>  /**
>> >>   * struct usb_udc - describes one usb device controller @@ -127,12
>> >> +128,45 @@ void usb_gadget_giveback_request(struct usb_ep *ep,  }
>> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_gadget_giveback_request);
>> >>
>> >> +int usb_gadget_register_notify(struct usb_gadget *gadget,
>> >> +                            struct notifier_block *nb) {
>> >> +     unsigned long flags;
>> >> +     int ret;
>> >> +
>> >> +     spin_lock_irqsave(&gadget->lock, flags);
>> >
>> > I find you use so many spin_lock_irqsave, any reasons for that?
>> > Why mutex_lock can't be used?
>> >
>>
>> The spin_lock_irqsave() can make it as a atomic notifier, that can make sure the
>> gadget state event can be quickly reported to the user who register a notifier
>> on the gadget device. Is it OK?
>>
>
> I don't think it is a good reason, spin_lock_irqsave is usually used for protecting
> data which is accessed at atomic environment.
>

Yes, we want the notify process is a atomic environment which do not
want to be interrupted by irq or other things to make the notice can
be quickly reported to the user.

Also i think the notify process is less cost, thus i use the spinlock. Thanks.

> Peter



-- 
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/