Re: [PATCH v14 3/6] usb: dwc3: Resize TX FIFOs to meet EP bursting requirements

["gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:30:07AM -0700, Wesley Cheng wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/13/2021 11:40 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com> writes:
> >>> Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com> writes:
> >>>> Wesley Cheng wrote:
> >>>>> Some devices have USB compositions which may require multiple endpoints
> >>>>> that support EP bursting.  HW defined TX FIFO sizes may not always be
> >>>>> sufficient for these compositions.  By utilizing flexible TX FIFO
> >>>>> allocation, this allows for endpoints to request the required FIFO depth to
> >>>>> achieve higher bandwidth.  With some higher bMaxBurst configurations, using
> >>>>> a larger TX FIFO size results in better TX throughput.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By introducing the check_config() callback, the resizing logic can fetch
> >>>>> the maximum number of endpoints used in the USB composition (can contain
> >>>>> multiple configurations), which helps ensure that the resizing logic can
> >>>>> fulfill the configuration(s), or return an error to the gadget layer
> >>>>> otherwise during bind time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Wesley Cheng <wcheng@codeaurora.org>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c   |  15 +++
> >>>>>  drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h   |  16 ++++
> >>>>>  drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c    |   2 +
> >>>>>  drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c | 232 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>  4 files changed, 265 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
> >>>>> index ba74ad7..b194aecd 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
> >>>>> @@ -1267,6 +1267,7 @@ static void dwc3_get_properties(struct dwc3 *dwc)
> >>>>>  	u8			rx_max_burst_prd;
> >>>>>  	u8			tx_thr_num_pkt_prd;
> >>>>>  	u8			tx_max_burst_prd;
> >>>>> +	u8			tx_fifo_resize_max_num;
> >>>>>  	const char		*usb_psy_name;
> >>>>>  	int			ret;
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> @@ -1282,6 +1283,13 @@ static void dwc3_get_properties(struct dwc3 *dwc)
> >>>>>  	 */
> >>>>>  	hird_threshold = 12;
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> +	/*
> >>>>> +	 * default to a TXFIFO size large enough to fit 6 max packets.  This
> >>>>> +	 * allows for systems with larger bus latencies to have some headroom
> >>>>> +	 * for endpoints that have a large bMaxBurst value.
> >>>>> +	 */
> >>>>> +	tx_fifo_resize_max_num = 6;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>>  	dwc->maximum_speed = usb_get_maximum_speed(dev);
> >>>>>  	dwc->max_ssp_rate = usb_get_maximum_ssp_rate(dev);
> >>>>>  	dwc->dr_mode = usb_get_dr_mode(dev);
> >>>>> @@ -1325,6 +1333,11 @@ static void dwc3_get_properties(struct dwc3 *dwc)
> >>>>>  				&tx_thr_num_pkt_prd);
> >>>>>  	device_property_read_u8(dev, "snps,tx-max-burst-prd",
> >>>>>  				&tx_max_burst_prd);
> >>>>> +	dwc->do_fifo_resize = device_property_read_bool(dev,
> >>>>> +							"tx-fifo-resize");
> >>>>> +	if (dwc->do_fifo_resize)
> >>>>> +		device_property_read_u8(dev, "tx-fifo-max-num",
> >>>>> +					&tx_fifo_resize_max_num);
> >>>>
> >>>> Why is this check here? The dwc->tx_fifo_resize_max_num should store
> >>>> whatever property the user sets. Whether the driver wants to use this
> >>>
> >>> Ack!
> >>>
> >>>> property should depend on "dwc->do_fifo_resize". Also why don't we have
> >>>> "snps," prefix to be consistent with the other properties?
> >>>
> >>> Ack!
> >>>
> >>>> Can we enforce to a single property? If the designer wants to enable
> >>>> this feature, he/she can to provide the tx-fifo-max-num. This would
> >>>> simplify the driver a bit. Since this is to optimize for performance,
> >>>> the user should know/want/test the specific value if they want to set
> >>>> for their setup and not hoping that the default setting not break their
> >>>> setup. So we can remove the "do_fifo_resize" property and just check
> >>>> whether tx_fifo_resize_max_num is set.
> >>>
> >>> Ack!
> >>>
> >>> All very valid points :-)
> >>>
> 
> Hi Thinh/Felipe,
> 
> >>
> >> Looks like this series already landed in Greg's testing branch. Not sure
> >> how we usually handle this to address some of our concerns. Add fix
> >> patches on top of Greg's testing branch?
> > 
> > yup, no choice anymore :-(
> > 
> 
> Let me review your feedback, which had some good points.  We can add a
> change addressing everything on top of what is merged on Greg's branch.

Any hint as to when these fixups will be sent?

thanks,

greg k-h