Re: [rfc]btusb with SCO support

Marcel Holtmann
2008-08-19T18:19:46Z

Hi Alan,

> > > And presumably, if the number of SCO connections increases from one to
> > > two then you need to switch to yet another altsetting -- while keeping
> > > the existing connection intact, yes?
> >
> > The connection will be kept alive. That is not the problem. We have to
> > cancel all URBs, select the new setting and then re-submit them.
>
> Along with any URBs that were generated while the new altsetting was
> being installed, right?
>
> If you're already keeping track of old URBs that were cancelled, why is
> it hard to keep track of new URBs as well?
>
> > As mentioned above, there is nothing much we can do. Once we get the
> > connection established event, we have to submit URBs. The event comes in
> > via an interrupt URB. In theory we could defer the processing of the HCI
> > events, but that would have bad impact on all other parts of Bluetooth
> > and doing this only for audio makes no sense.
>
> How about deferring only the submission of isoc URBs while doing all
> the others immediately?

the bulk, control and interrupt URBs are on a different interface and so
they are not affected.

> > > Is it possible to change the subsystem design so that, for example, in
> > > addition to getting a notify() callback when the connection settings
> > > change, you also call a ready() function in the subsystem core to tell
> > > it when the new settings are ready for use?
> >
> > I was thinking about that. However it is still the same problem. We do
> > have to submit URBs as soon as the connection is up. For the bulk URBs
> > (for ACL) it is no problem. The only issue is with isoc URB (for SCO),
> > because we have to pick an alternate setting first.
>
> Well, you _can't_ submit isoc URBs before changing the altsetting; it
> just won't work. So you can't start submitting them as soon as the
> connection is up -- the hardware doesn't allow it. One way or another
> they have to be deferred. The only question is how the deferrals
> should be implemented.

Our problem is only that we are using a workqueue and can't make any
assumption when we get scheduled. This is obviously not perfect, but it
seems there is nothing much that can be done.

I think the specification is simply bad and we have to live with it.

> > > If not, and you are forced to rely on queuing URBs for later
> > > submission, then I think it might be more appropriate to do this
> > > queuing in the Bluetooth driver code rather than in usbcore. You could
> > > have an entire anchor devoted to deferred URBs.
> >
> > What happens if we submit the isoc URBs right away and the call
> > usb_set_interface at some later time. Will these be canceled or what
> > happens to them when switching the endpoint.
>
> When you call usb_set_interface(), all pending URBs for that interface
> will be cancelled and will complete with a status of -ESHUTDOWN.
>
> (Hmm, looking at the code I see that the altsetting gets changed
> _before_ the old URBs are cancelled. That probably is a bug...)

Currently we cancel the URBs before calling usb_set_inferface.

Regards

Marcel