mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	USB <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for handling delay STATUS phase
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:18:02 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMz4kuKWLLSC7SkEp0H8cVqO2YYcJKuLfFN1+RkrJSOpgd8S9A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87o9y1medz.fsf@linux.intel.com>

On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> writes:
>>>> (One possible approach would be to have the setup routine return
>>>> different values for explicit and implicit status stages -- for
>>>> example, return 1 if it wants to submit an explicit status request.
>>>> That wouldn't be very different from the current
>>>> USB_GADGET_DELAYED_STATUS approach.)
>>>
>>> not really, no. The idea was for composite.c and/or functions to support
>>> both methods (temporarily) and use "gadget->wants_explicit_stages" to
>>> explicitly queue DATA and STATUS. That would mean that f_mass_storage
>>> wouldn't have to return DELAYED_STATUS if
>>> (gadget->wants_explicit_stages).
>>>
>>> After all UDCs are converted over and set wants_explicit_stages (which
>>> should all be done in a single series), then we get rid of the flag and
>>> the older method of DELAYED_STATUS.
>>
>> (Sorry for late reply due to my holiday)
>> I also met the problem pointed by Alan, from my test, I still want to
>> need one return value to indicate if it wants to submit an explicit
>> status request. Think about the Control-IN with a data stage, we can
>> not get the STATUS phase request from usb_ep_queue() call, and we need
>
> why not? wLength tells you that this is a 3-stage transfer. Gadget
> driver should be able to figure out that it needs to usb_ep_queue()
> another request for status stage.

I tried again, but still can not work. Suppose the no-data control:
(1) SET_ADDRESS request: function driver will not queue one request
for status phase by usb_ep_queue() call.
(2) SET_CONFIGURATION request: function driver will queue one 0-length
request for status phase by usb_ep_queue() call, especially for
mass_storage driver, it will queue one request  for status phase
later.

So I am not sure how the Gadget driver can figure out that it needs to
usb_ep_queue() another request for status stage when handling the
no-data control?

>> to handle this STATUS phase request in dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(). But
>> Control-OUT will get one 0-length IN request for the status stage from
>> usb_ep_queue(), so we need one return value from setup routine to
>
> no we don't :-)
>
>> distinguish these in dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(), or we can not handle
>> status request correctly. Maybe I missed something else.
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, I am very doubtful about requiring explicit setup
>>>> requests.
>>>
>>> right, me too ;-)
>>
>> So do you suggest me continue to try to do this? Thanks.
>
> explicit setup? no
> explicit status? yes
>
> If you don't wanna do it, it's fine :-) I'll just add to my TODO
> list. It just depends on how much other tasks you have on your end ;-)
>
> --
> balbi



-- 
Baolin.wang
Best Regards

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-02-21  9:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-14  8:40 Baolin Wang
2017-01-16 10:56 ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-16 11:29   ` Baolin Wang
2017-01-16 11:29     ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-16 12:00       ` Baolin Wang
2017-01-16 12:06         ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-16 17:53           ` Alan Stern
2017-01-16 19:18             ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-17 15:54               ` Alan Stern
2017-01-23 11:57                 ` Felipe Balbi
2017-02-17  5:41                   ` Baolin Wang
2017-02-17  8:04                     ` Felipe Balbi
2017-02-20  2:27                       ` Baolin Wang
2017-02-21  9:18                       ` Baolin Wang [this message]
2017-02-27 22:11                         ` Alan Stern
2017-02-28 11:56                           ` Felipe Balbi
2017-02-28 18:34                             ` Alan Stern
2017-03-02 10:43                               ` Felipe Balbi
2017-03-02 10:15                           ` Baolin Wang
2017-03-02 10:48                             ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-17  7:02           ` Baolin Wang
2017-01-17 10:39             ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-17 11:40               ` Baolin Wang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAMz4kuKWLLSC7SkEp0H8cVqO2YYcJKuLfFN1+RkrJSOpgd8S9A@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=baolin.wang@linaro.org \
    --cc=balbi@kernel.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome