Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1583183

Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for handling delay STATUS phase

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

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.

> 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

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for  handling delay STATUS phase Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> - 2017-02-17 06:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for handling delay STATUS phase Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> - 2017-02-17 09:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for  handling delay STATUS phase Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> - 2017-02-20 03:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for  handling delay STATUS phase Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> - 2017-02-21 10:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for  handling delay STATUS phase Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-27 23:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for handling delay STATUS phase Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> - 2017-02-28 13:10 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for  handling delay STATUS phase Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-28 20:00 +0100

csiph-web