From: "Michał Pecio" <michal.pecio@gmail.com>
To: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] usb: xhci: Unify duplicate inc_enq() code
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:45:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250224004542.5861d4dc@foxbook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d59a6694-e0e7-46b7-874e-0c6acd8c9126@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:54:11 +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> On 21.2.2025 0.47, Michal Pecio wrote:
> > Remove a block of code copied from inc_enq(). As often happens, the
> > two copies have diverged somewhat - in this case, inc_enq() has a
> > bug where it may leave the chain bit of a link TRB unset on a
> > quirky HC. Fix this. Remove the pointless 'next' variable which
> > only aliases ring->enqueue.
>
> The linnk TRB chain bit should be set when the ring is created, and
> never cleared on those quirky hosts.
OK, I see, there is stuff in xhci-mem.c. I'll remove the above text
and any code which touches the bit on quirky HCs.
Speaking of which, I have some evidence that NEC uPD720200 has the
exact same bug as AMD, namely after a Missed Service Error near the
end of a segment it fetches TRBs out of bounds and trips the IOMMU
or stops with Ring Underrun. Link chain quirk seems to fix it.
> maybe
>
> if (trb_is_link(ring->enqueue) && (chain || more_trbs_coming))
> inc_eng_past_link(xhci, ring, chain);
>
> Avoids calling inc_enq_past_link() every time we increase enqueue,
> and explains why we call it.
I can do that too. By the way, do we actually want this while loop in
inc_enq_past_link() at all? Currently links only exist at the end of a
segment and always point to the beginning of the next segment.
I noticed that per xHCI 4.11.7, "Software shall not define consecutive
Link TRBs within a TD". I suppose "consecutive" means "one pointing to
another". And if it's prohibited inside a TD, it will likely always be
easier to avoid doing it at all than try to manage special cases.
Regards,
Michal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-23 23:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-20 22:43 [PATCH 0/3] xhci: ring queuing cleanups Michal Pecio
2025-02-20 22:44 ` [PATCH 1/3] usb: xhci: Simplify update_ring_for_set_deq_completion() Michal Pecio
2025-02-21 13:23 ` Mathias Nyman
2025-03-05 8:24 ` Michał Pecio
2025-02-20 22:46 ` [PATCH 2/3] usb: xhci: Simplify moving HW Dequeue Pointer past cancelled TDs Michal Pecio
2025-02-20 22:47 ` [PATCH 3/3] usb: xhci: Unify duplicate inc_enq() code Michal Pecio
2025-02-21 14:54 ` Mathias Nyman
2025-02-23 23:45 ` Michał Pecio [this message]
2025-02-24 11:49 ` Mathias Nyman
2025-02-24 21:01 ` Michał Pecio
2025-02-25 9:33 ` Mathias Nyman
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=20250224004542.5861d4dc@foxbook \
--to=michal.pecio@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathias.nyman@intel.com \
--cc=mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com \
/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