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=-9.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 7CFDFC43387 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 12:49:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4120220857 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 12:49:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1546087766; bh=K5tHIdGxD5w9c0Sx/kxQmPHSmItASLtP1uBdx5nzfRo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=JakioBhHmQipIvCL9yiRLIChnPjNah8hpKvm8f4+IYJfPp75Bk/1bxr7QudTN5wy8 1vSKBiQ+CwJmyelIQfL9Rckh2+fGKukKxmI/1pyvGNh82OX28zhas6Jyv9EXcuf9hL wb7DfIObmN2FPaqAOGN9/1Pjb5V6PetyfQYesauE= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726883AbeL2MtZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:49:25 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36056 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725992AbeL2MtZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:49:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (83-68-17-109.ip.xs4all.nl [83.68.17.109]) (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 879D42081B; Sat, 29 Dec 2018 12:49:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1546087764; bh=K5tHIdGxD5w9c0Sx/kxQmPHSmItASLtP1uBdx5nzfRo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=tjvzESE6CL4QcJGlKulO0+63qOHs9wGcaff+WFcOpeMkSruNjBj6TPBtkM2U5/M3M WB49wDfnQnoSKEqpbyHyYgnahPAGieK+omVP3SjA4jM4TRLIZgGhuza0v9tt8tRXwC vUY3GpktIKxQnSGIx4mtUS4cl85otqKYuFhm0Hh4= Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 13:49:21 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Chunfeng Yun Cc: Felipe Balbi , Matthias Brugger , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: devio: update max count of DPs per interval for ISOC Message-ID: <20181229124921.GA5959@kroah.com> References: <1545992864-9530-1-git-send-email-chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com> <20181228105148.GA22073@kroah.com> <1546051720.32173.139.camel@mhfsdcap03> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1546051720.32173.139.camel@mhfsdcap03> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 10:48:40AM +0800, Chunfeng Yun wrote: > Hi, > On Fri, 2018-12-28 at 11:51 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 06:27:44PM +0800, Chunfeng Yun wrote: > > > The host shall be able to accept and send up to 96 DPs for > > > devices operating at Gen 2 speed. > > > > Why? What is this keeping from working properly today? > > The failure happened when I tried to send up to 96DPs per an interval > for SSP ISOC transations by libusb, this is used to verify SSP ISOC > function of USB3 GEN2 controller. Maybe for normal scenarios they > needn't transfer greater than 48 DPs in an ISOC interval. > (refer usb3.1r1.0 section 8.12.6 Isochronous Transactions) Ok, please add this information in the changelog text please. > > > > I need a much better changelog text here in order to be able to accept > > this patch. > I'll make the change in next version > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chunfeng Yun > > > --- > > > drivers/usb/core/devio.c | 8 +++----- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/devio.c b/drivers/usb/core/devio.c > > > index a75bc0b8a50f..82c16210e34c 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/usb/core/devio.c > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/devio.c > > > @@ -1564,12 +1564,10 @@ static int proc_do_submiturb(struct usb_dev_state *ps, struct usbdevfs_urb *uurb > > > } > > > for (totlen = u = 0; u < number_of_packets; u++) { > > > /* > > > - * arbitrary limit need for USB 3.0 > > > - * bMaxBurst (0~15 allowed, 1~16 packets) > > > - * bmAttributes (bit 1:0, mult 0~2, 1~3 packets) > > > - * sizemax: 1024 * 16 * 3 = 49152 > > > + * arbitrary limit need for USB 3.1 Gen2 > > > + * sizemax: 96 DPs at SSP, 96 * 1024 = 98304 > > > */ > > > - if (isopkt[u].length > 49152) { > > > + if (isopkt[u].length > 98304) { > > > > Are we going to have to keep bumping this up as speeds get faster and > > faster? > Or remove the check of data length? I'm not sure which way is better No, we added that check for a good reason, please see the git log for the details :) thanks, greg k-h