[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: [PATCH v7 01/10] usb: gadget: udc: Add timer support for usb requests


Anurag Kumar Vulisha <> writes:
>>Does the data book suggest a value for the timeout?
> No, the databook doesn't mention about the timeout value
>>> >At this point, it seems that the generic approach will be messier than having every
>>> >controller driver implement its own fix. At least, that's how it appears to me.

Why, if the UDC implementation will, anyway, be a timer?

>>(Especially if dwc3 is the only driver affected.)
> As discussed above, the issue may happen with other gadgets too. As I got divide opinions
> on this implementation and both the implementations looks fine to me, I am little confused
> on which should be implemented.
> @Felipe: Do you agree with Alan's implementation? Please let us know your suggestion
> on this.

I still think a generic timer is a better solution since it has other uses.

>>> >Ideally it would not be necessary to rely on a timeout at all.
>>> >
>>> >Also, maintainers dislike module parameters. It would be better not to add one.
>>> Okay. I would be happy if any alternative for this issue is present but unfortunately
>>> I am not able to figure out any alternative other than timers. If not
>>> we can add an configfs entry in stream gadget to update the timeout. Please
>>> your opinion on this approach.
>>Since the purpose of the timeout is to detect a deadlock caused by a
>>hardware bug, I suggest a fixed and relatively short timeout value such
>>as one second. Cancelling and requeuing a few requests at 1-second
>>intervals shouldn't add very much overhead.

I wouldn't call this a HW bug though. This is just how the UDC
behaves. There are N streams and host can move data in any stream at any
time. This means that host & gadget _can_ disagree on what stream to
start next.

One way to avoid this would be to never pre-start any streams and always
rely on XferNotReady, but that would mean greatly reduced throughput for


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-07 07:06    [W:0.187 / U:4.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site