From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC0DC43461 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:11:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BA321D43 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:11:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1600168284; bh=wFfE5fiM4ubdhDZUDuxOI8nMSLN4cvgcqiQR3bGu0Xs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=yHJWqBDZajLOf2Aq3vr3v51NsB3Pd5FZ5bzzdBZtX7tHzk/LGwF3wR0AsEXJiSTK5 5y9OOb54AxBCd4MaQcDE55ZWhvr8AW8IUZ6ERjIIRylRIrdY3c1tA+qiZrB1a0FP2+ SbiDCddfZr86kwWP7IyXzHBv5OiI1KOs5hRjxU+E= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726185AbgIOLLS (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 07:11:18 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57360 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726131AbgIOLKa (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 07:10:30 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-74-64.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.74.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E35C9218AC; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:01:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1600167674; bh=wFfE5fiM4ubdhDZUDuxOI8nMSLN4cvgcqiQR3bGu0Xs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=PMVLeHv0REyxe99q8amMjinAlAsMG5wWbWH2GaUPW+Eb4ZnO3u6d5rQMha5WYQiZu b2jqBRwRYCSyBymfWRfb/mkOTzC2oiJ0ZLI75hyE3cEBhM6YSqrNAWCOyXfPMWNgib ST19kempafe2Kp/veIU/nmWxwbSMmaR+xvLJwJNA= Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:01:11 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Eugeniu Rosca Cc: Alan Stern , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrew_gabbasov@mentor.com, Baxter Jim , "Natsume, Wataru (ADITJ/SWG)" , "Nishiguchi, Naohiro (ADITJ/SWG)" , =?utf-8?B?5rWF6YeO5oGt5Y+y?= , kernel test robot , yasushi asano , Martin Mueller , Eugeniu Rosca Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] USB: hub.c: decrease the number of attempts of enumeration scheme Message-ID: <20200915110111.GA269380@kroah.com> References: <20200907155052.2450-1-yazzep@gmail.com> <20200907155052.2450-2-yazzep@gmail.com> <20200908190402.GA797206@rowland.harvard.edu> <20200911151228.GA883311@rowland.harvard.edu> <20200915094531.GA8046@lxhi-065.adit-jv.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200915094531.GA8046@lxhi-065.adit-jv.com> Sender: linux-usb-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:45:31AM +0200, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > Dear Alan, > Dear Greg, > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:12:28AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > The thing is, I'm afraid that without these retry loops, some devices > > will stop working. If that happens, we will not be able to keep this > > patch in place; we will just have to accept that we fail the PET test. > > > > Alan Stern > > Does this mean that Linux community leaves no choice but to ship a > forked kernel (with no chance of alignment to upstream) for > organizations which design embedded devices where USB plays a key > role, hence requires passing the USB-IF Compliance Program [*]? We are saying that if you ship such a kernel, we _KNOW_ that it will fail to work in a number of known systems. I doubt you want that to happen if you care about shipping a device, right? > Is there hope to give users a knob (build-time or run-time) which would > enable the behavior expected and thoroughly described in compliance > docs, particularly chapter "6.7.22 A-UUT Device No Response for > connection timeout" of "USB On-The-Go and Embedded Host Automated > Compliance Plan" [**]? Given that the USB-IF has explicitly kicked-out the Linux community from its specification work and orginization, I personally don't really care what they say here. If you are a member of the USB-IF, please work with them to fix the test to reflect real-world systems and not an idealized system. Last I heard, they wanted nothing to do with Linux systems at all :( thanks, greg k-h