From: huangwei <huangwei@kylinos.cn>
To: "Jacob Riff" <jacob@riff.dk>,
"Heikki Krogerus" <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
Cc: 黄伟 <huangwei@kylinos.cn>, linux-usb <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: typec: ucsi: retry init when the PPM answers early commands incorrectly
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:01:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202608171701083146745@kylinos.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20260817043746.1449099-1-jacob@riff.dk
Hi Jacob,
Thanks - that resolves my concern. I had missed that the "possible
UCSI driver bug" dev_err in ucsi_read_error() is untouched by your
patch, so first-occurrence visibility is preserved and the bounded
retry only delays the final verdict by ~10s. Restricting the retry
to the ucsi_init_work() path is a reasonable discriminator, given
the error codes really are identical between the two cases.
No further comments from my side. Good luck with the RFC.
Best regards,
Huang Wei
于 2026-08-17 12:37, Jacob Riff 写道:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 11:19:24 +0800, huangwei wrote:
> There the commands do complete, but the EC takes longer than the 5s
> hardcoded wait in ucsi_sync_control_common(). The fix for that case is
> already reviewed [1] (thanks Heikki, Fedor), so both failure modes of
> the "PPM not ready during boot" window would be covered:
>
> - slow answers -> longer completion timeout [1]
> - wrong answers -> init retry (this RFC)
Hi Huang Wei,
Thanks for taking a look, and good to see the two failure modes of
the boot window end up with complementary fixes.
> One small question on the -EINVAL retry: ucsi_read_error() also
> returns -EINVAL for UCSI_ERROR_INVALID_CON_NUM / UNREGONIZED_CMD /
> INVALID_CMD_ARGUMENT, which are logged as "possible UCSI driver bug".
> Retrying those is harmless in practice (debug-level logging, bounded
> attempts), but it delays the report of a genuine driver bug from the
> first occurrence to the 100th. Did you consider distinguishing the
> PPM-not-ready case from the real error case, or is the simplicity of
> retrying both worth that trade-off?
I considered it, but by error code the two cases are identical. On
this machine the not-ready PPM answers a valid standard init command
with UNREGONIZED_CMD / INVALID_CMD_ARGUMENT - exactly the codes
ucsi_read_error() maps to "possible UCSI driver bug". So the only
discriminators left are context and persistence, which is what the
patch relies on: the retry exists only in the ucsi_init_work() path
(a runtime -EINVAL is unaffected), the not-ready window has cleared
after a single retry in every boot observed here, and a genuine bug
fails deterministically, exhausts the bounded attempts (100 x 100ms
= 10s with the role switch constants) and still ends in the loud
"PPM init failed, stop trying".
On delaying the report: the "possible UCSI driver bug" message is
dev_err in ucsi_read_error() and this patch does not touch it, so it
still fires on the first occurrence. With the retries a deterministic
bug would print it on every attempt before the final error, so the
cost is a 10 second delay of the final verdict rather than a hidden
report. That seemed a fair price for reusing the existing role switch
retry machinery unchanged.
Best regards,
Jacob
2026-08-17
公司:麒麟软件有限公司
姓名:黄伟 (Daway.Huang)
地址:上海市徐汇区番禺路1028号数娱大厦12楼
邮编:200030
电话:021-51098866-6033
手机:13814996575
Email:huangwei@kylinos.cn
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-17 9:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <202608171119200877083@kylinos.cn>
2026-08-17 4:37 ` [RFC PATCH] usb: typec: ucsi: retry init when the PPM answers early commands incorrectly Jacob Riff
2026-08-17 9:01 ` huangwei [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202608171701083146745@kylinos.cn \
--to=huangwei@kylinos.cn \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jacob@riff.dk \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox