Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] usb: dwc3: gadget: Increase DWC3 controller halt timeout

Jack Pham
2022-07-13T21:53:53Z

On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 12:40:53PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 07:56:43PM -0700, Jack Pham wrote:
> > Hi Wesley,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 05:35:23PM -0700, Wesley Cheng wrote:
> > > Since EP0 transactions need to be completed before the controller halt
> > > sequence is finished, this may take some time depending on the host and the
> > > enabled functions. Increase the controller halt timeout, so that we give
> > > the controller sufficient time to handle EP0 transfers.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 861c010a2ee1 ("usb: dwc3: gadget: Refactor pullup()")
> > > Suggested-by: Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@quicinc.com>
> > > ---
> > > Link:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/4988ed34-04a4-060a-ccef-f57790f76a2b@synopsys.com/
> > >
> > > drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c | 1 +
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
> > > index 41b7007358de..e32d7293c447 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
> > > @@ -2476,6 +2476,7 @@ static int dwc3_gadget_run_stop(struct dwc3 *dwc, int is_on, int suspend)
> > > dwc3_gadget_dctl_write_safe(dwc, reg);
> > >
> > > do {
> > > + msleep(1);
> >
> > Be aware that this probably won't sleep for *just* 1ms. From
> > Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst:
> >
> > msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and
> > will often sleep longer (~20 ms actual sleep for any
> > value given in the 1~20ms range). In many cases this
> > is not the desired behavior.
> >
> > So with timeout==500 this loop could very well end up iterating for up
> > to 10 seconds. Granted this shouldn't be called from any atomic context
> > but just wanted to make sure that the effective increase in timeout as
> > $SUBJECT intends is made clear here and that it's not overly generous.
> >
> > > reg = dwc3_readl(dwc->regs, DWC3_DSTS);
> > > reg &= DWC3_DSTS_DEVCTRLHLT;
> > > } while (--timeout && !(!is_on ^ !reg));
>
> Does it make sense to convert this loop to use read_poll_timeout() and
> make the timeout explicit, something like:
>
> ret = read_poll_timeout(dwc3_readl, reg, !(!is_on ^ !(reg & DWC3_DSTS_DEVCTRLHLT)),
> 100, timeout * USEC_PER_MSEC, true, dwc->regs, DWC3_DSTS);
>
> ?

Yeah I think it would make sense. Might even be worthwhile to revisit
similar loops being performed in dwc3_send_gadget_generic_command() and
dwc3_send_gadget_ep_cmd() which are currently spinning delay-lessly for a
fixed number of iterations.

Jack