Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1485686 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-18 07:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-09-19 12:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] usb: dwc3: Wait for control tranfer completed when stopping gadget Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> - 2016-09-18 07:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] usb: dwc3: Wait for control tranfer completed when stopping gadget Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> - 2016-09-19 12:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] usb: dwc3: Wait for control tranfer completed when stopping gadget Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> - 2016-09-19 12:50 +0200
| From | Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 07:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] usb: dwc3: Wait for control tranfer completed when stopping gadget |
| Message-ID | <siCmR-3xx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Felipe,
On 9 September 2016 at 19:03, Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> writes:
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>> index 057739d..22787b6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
>> @@ -999,6 +999,7 @@ static int dwc3_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> goto err0;
>>
>> spin_lock_init(&dwc->lock);
>> + init_completion(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>
> this should be done only when gadget is required; meaning that this
> should be moved to dwc3_gadget_init()
OK.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>> index b2317e7..858e661 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -843,6 +844,7 @@ struct dwc3 {
>> dma_addr_t ep0_bounce_addr;
>> dma_addr_t scratch_addr;
>> struct dwc3_request ep0_usb_req;
>> + struct completion ep0_completed;
>
> when you call this "ep0_completed" it seems like you're defining a flag,
> but you're not :) How about "ep0_in_setup" instead? That conveys the
> idea that we're waiting for ep0 to reach setup phase.
Make sense and will change it.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> index 632e5a4..baf932d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>> @@ -286,6 +286,7 @@ static void dwc3_ep0_stall_and_restart(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>
>> dwc->ep0state = EP0_SETUP_PHASE;
>> dwc3_ep0_out_start(dwc);
>> + complete(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>
> no, this is wrong. I see what you're trying to do here, but we don't
> want to duplicate this call to complete() right? One thing we can
> realize is that *always* after STATUS phase or after a STALL, we will go
> through dwc3_ep0_out_start(), this mean we can call complete() before
> starting the following SETUP phase.
>
> Single place to call complete() ;-)
Make sense to me and I will fix that in next version.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>> index 1a33308..c9026ce 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>> @@ -1441,6 +1441,15 @@ static int dwc3_gadget_run_stop(struct dwc3 *dwc, int is_on, int suspend)
>> if (pm_runtime_suspended(dwc->dev))
>> return 0;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Per databook, when we want to stop the gadget, if a control transfer
>> + * is still in process, complete it and get the core into setup phase.
>> + */
>> + if (!is_on && dwc->ep0state != EP0_SETUP_PHASE) {
>> + reinit_completion(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>
> this seems unnecessary to me. Also, why return here so the caller has to
We should re-init the completion due to it will complete control
transfer many times before we try to stop gadget.
> wait? You could just have called wait_for_completion() here straight
> away:
>
> if (!is_on && dwc->ep0state != EP0_SETUP_PHASE) {
> /* should this be interruptible? */
> ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&dwc->ep0_in_setup,
> msecs_to_jiffies(500));
> if (ret == 0) {
> dwc3_trace(trace_dwc3_gadget, "RUN/STOP timeout");
> return -ETIMEDOUT;
> }
> }
>
> There's also no need for that "try_again" trickery. We either can halt
> the controller within 500ms or we cannot.
But this is in atomic context and we can not issue
wait_for_completion_timeout() in atomic context, then we should just
return here.
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 12:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] usb: dwc3: Wait for control tranfer completed when stopping gadget |
| Message-ID | <sj3wJ-3KO-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1485686 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> writes:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>> index 1a33308..c9026ce 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>> @@ -1441,6 +1441,15 @@ static int dwc3_gadget_run_stop(struct dwc3 *dwc, int is_on, int suspend)
>>> if (pm_runtime_suspended(dwc->dev))
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Per databook, when we want to stop the gadget, if a control transfer
>>> + * is still in process, complete it and get the core into setup phase.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!is_on && dwc->ep0state != EP0_SETUP_PHASE) {
>>> + reinit_completion(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>>
>> this seems unnecessary to me. Also, why return here so the caller has to
>
> We should re-init the completion due to it will complete control
> transfer many times before we try to stop gadget.
not sure I get this comment, care to furter explain what you mean?
>> wait? You could just have called wait_for_completion() here straight
>> away:
>>
>> if (!is_on && dwc->ep0state != EP0_SETUP_PHASE) {
>> /* should this be interruptible? */
>> ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&dwc->ep0_in_setup,
>> msecs_to_jiffies(500));
>> if (ret == 0) {
>> dwc3_trace(trace_dwc3_gadget, "RUN/STOP timeout");
>> return -ETIMEDOUT;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> There's also no need for that "try_again" trickery. We either can halt
>> the controller within 500ms or we cannot.
>
> But this is in atomic context and we can not issue
> wait_for_completion_timeout() in atomic context, then we should just
> return here.
heh, good point. Missed that :-)
--
balbi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 12:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj4j7-4ll-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1486311 |
Hi Felipe,
On 19 September 2016 at 17:58, Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> writes:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>>> index 1a33308..c9026ce 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>>> @@ -1441,6 +1441,15 @@ static int dwc3_gadget_run_stop(struct dwc3 *dwc, int is_on, int suspend)
>>>> if (pm_runtime_suspended(dwc->dev))
>>>> return 0;
>>>>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Per databook, when we want to stop the gadget, if a control transfer
>>>> + * is still in process, complete it and get the core into setup phase.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (!is_on && dwc->ep0state != EP0_SETUP_PHASE) {
>>>> + reinit_completion(&dwc->ep0_completed);
>>>
>>> this seems unnecessary to me. Also, why return here so the caller has to
>>
>> We should re-init the completion due to it will complete control
>> transfer many times before we try to stop gadget.
>
> not sure I get this comment, care to furter explain what you mean?
Sorry for confusing comment. What I mean is it will issue
'complete(&dwc->ep0_completed)' when one control transfer is
completed, and it will increase the completion->done when every
'complete()' function is issued.
If there are seveal control transfers are completed (completion->done
is not 0 bow) and dwc->ep0state is not in EP0_SETUP_PHASE satus when
we want to stop gadget, then we should wait for completion. If we
don't call 'reinit_completion(&dwc->ep0_completed)' (it will reset
completion->done as 0 ), it will not wait for 500ms in
wait_for_completion_timeout() funtion. Hope I make it clear.
>
>>> wait? You could just have called wait_for_completion() here straight
>>> away:
>>>
>>> if (!is_on && dwc->ep0state != EP0_SETUP_PHASE) {
>>> /* should this be interruptible? */
>>> ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&dwc->ep0_in_setup,
>>> msecs_to_jiffies(500));
>>> if (ret == 0) {
>>> dwc3_trace(trace_dwc3_gadget, "RUN/STOP timeout");
>>> return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> There's also no need for that "try_again" trickery. We either can halt
>>> the controller within 500ms or we cannot.
>>
>> But this is in atomic context and we can not issue
>> wait_for_completion_timeout() in atomic context, then we should just
>> return here.
>
> heh, good point. Missed that :-)
OK:)
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web