[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: gadget: fix miss isoc issue introduced by IRQ latency
Hi Thinh:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thinh Nguyen []
>Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 5:43 AM
>To: Felipe Balbi <>; Zengtao (B)
>Cc: liangshengjun <>; Greg Kroah-Hartman
>; Thinh Nguyen
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: gadget: fix miss isoc issue introduced by
>IRQ latency
>Hi Zengtao,
>On 12/14/2018 3:24 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> Hi,
>> "Zengtao (B)" <> writes:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Felipe Balbi []
>>>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 4:52 PM
>>>> To: Zengtao (B) <>
>>>> Cc: liangshengjun <>; Zengtao (B)
>>>> <>; Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>>> <>;;
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: gadget: fix miss isoc issue
>>>> introduced by IRQ latency
>>>> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>>>> Zeng Tao <> writes:
>>>>> If it's a busy system, some times when we start an isoc transfer,
>>>>> the framenumber get from the event buffer may be already elasped,
>>>>> in this case, we will get all the packets dropped due to miss isoc.
>>>>> And we turn into transfer nothing, to fix this issue, we need to
>>>>> fix the framenumber to make sure that it's not out of date.
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Liang Shengjun <>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zeng Tao <>
>>>> There's a patch going upstream already doing this:
>>>> /?h
>>>> =next&id=d53701067f048b8b11635e964b6d3bd9a248c622
>>> Sorry, I think I missed to update to the latest version. But I think
>>> my patch is more efficient. Because I just sync the frame from the
>>> HW, it won't fail and there is no need to extra tries.
>>> What do you think about it?
>> the 14 bits you use for your check is not representative of the actual
>> micro-frame you're currently in. Thinh explained that in the
>> discussion we had until we came to the patch I pointed you to above.
>> Please look at the mailing list archives for details.
>There are several issues with this patch.
>1) Your frame elapsed time check is not based on interval but statically
>DWC3_EVENT_PRAM_SOFFN / 2. That's about 1 second. So it doesn't
>account for isoc transfers with large service interval of 1 sec or more.

This is just for checking whether the Frame number is overflow or not. So
1 second should a reason value.

>2) This function __dwc3_gadget_target_frame_elapsed() should have
>comments for what it does. The name implies that this function checks
>for eframe > cframe, and not eframe > cframe + 1s.
eframe > cframe + 1s is used to deal with the Frame number overflow.

>3) If this check fails, then it will do DWC3_ALIGN_FRAME() at least twice.
>The isoc transfer will start 1 more interval into the future than it needs to.
If the interval is one, 1 more interval should be more reasonable because the
core always fetch the trb one frame ahead.

>Also, I think the role of this check should be from the controller as it has
>more information and its own logic to decide if the selected future uframe
>has elapsed.

Yes, agree, but I think if the sw can be used to do the same thing and more
effective, Why not?

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-17 02:47    [W:0.053 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site