linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	USB <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for handling delay STATUS phase
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:04:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o9y1medz.fsf@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMz4kuKFknFPw4c-TNsYTRF=yNX1Kj4jf2bLO0ny0F=Ue-=keg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2128 bytes --]


Hi,

Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> writes:
>>> (One possible approach would be to have the setup routine return
>>> different values for explicit and implicit status stages -- for
>>> example, return 1 if it wants to submit an explicit status request.
>>> That wouldn't be very different from the current
>>> USB_GADGET_DELAYED_STATUS approach.)
>>
>> not really, no. The idea was for composite.c and/or functions to support
>> both methods (temporarily) and use "gadget->wants_explicit_stages" to
>> explicitly queue DATA and STATUS. That would mean that f_mass_storage
>> wouldn't have to return DELAYED_STATUS if
>> (gadget->wants_explicit_stages).
>>
>> After all UDCs are converted over and set wants_explicit_stages (which
>> should all be done in a single series), then we get rid of the flag and
>> the older method of DELAYED_STATUS.
>
> (Sorry for late reply due to my holiday)
> I also met the problem pointed by Alan, from my test, I still want to
> need one return value to indicate if it wants to submit an explicit
> status request. Think about the Control-IN with a data stage, we can
> not get the STATUS phase request from usb_ep_queue() call, and we need

why not? wLength tells you that this is a 3-stage transfer. Gadget
driver should be able to figure out that it needs to usb_ep_queue()
another request for status stage.

> to handle this STATUS phase request in dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(). But
> Control-OUT will get one 0-length IN request for the status stage from
> usb_ep_queue(), so we need one return value from setup routine to

no we don't :-)

> distinguish these in dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(), or we can not handle
> status request correctly. Maybe I missed something else.
>>
>>> On the other hand, I am very doubtful about requiring explicit setup
>>> requests.
>>
>> right, me too ;-)
>
> So do you suggest me continue to try to do this? Thanks.

explicit setup? no
explicit status? yes

If you don't wanna do it, it's fine :-) I'll just add to my TODO
list. It just depends on how much other tasks you have on your end ;-)

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-17  8:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-14  8:40 [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for handling delay STATUS phase Baolin Wang
2017-01-16 10:56 ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-16 11:29   ` Baolin Wang
2017-01-16 11:29     ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-16 12:00       ` Baolin Wang
2017-01-16 12:06         ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-16 17:53           ` Alan Stern
2017-01-16 19:18             ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-17 15:54               ` Alan Stern
2017-01-23 11:57                 ` Felipe Balbi
2017-02-17  5:41                   ` Baolin Wang
2017-02-17  8:04                     ` Felipe Balbi [this message]
2017-02-20  2:27                       ` Baolin Wang
2017-02-21  9:18                       ` Baolin Wang
2017-02-27 22:11                         ` Alan Stern
2017-02-28 11:56                           ` Felipe Balbi
2017-02-28 18:34                             ` Alan Stern
2017-03-02 10:43                               ` Felipe Balbi
2017-03-02 10:15                           ` Baolin Wang
2017-03-02 10:48                             ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-17  7:02           ` Baolin Wang
2017-01-17 10:39             ` Felipe Balbi
2017-01-17 11:40               ` Baolin Wang

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=87o9y1medz.fsf@linux.intel.com \
    --to=balbi@kernel.org \
    --cc=baolin.wang@linaro.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).