The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com>
To: Elson Serrao <elson.serrao@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com>,
	"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Add version check for setting ForceRM
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 22:35:15 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <anpRMnKIRwll8g14@vbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3ae42f16-ead2-4811-9b5e-da42bf81d477@oss.qualcomm.com>

On Mon, Aug 10, 2026, Elson Serrao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/6/2026 5:19 PM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2026, Elson Serrao wrote:
> >> Hi Thinh,
> >>  
> >> We are observing an issue on DWC_usb31 v2.00a and v2.10a controllers where
> >> a transfer aborted through the ep_dequeue() path continues to generate
> >> writes even after EndTransfer has completed. In our testing, the issue was
> 
> [...]
> >> Thanks,
> >> Elson
> >>
> >> Elson Serrao (1):
> >>   usb: dwc3: gadget: add version check for setting ForceRM
> >>
> >>  drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c | 7 +++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> 2.34.1
> >>
> > 
> > Hi Elson,
> > 
> > Thanks for the patch.
> > 
> > This new recommendation applies to all 3.2 controllers also.
> > 
> > I don't recall forceRM=0 causing any issue to previous versions.
> > 
> > I would suggest applying this change across all IPs and IP versions to
> > keep consistent behavior when ending transfers since TRBs are updated on
> > completion. Since older IP databooks recommended setting forceRM=1, can
> > you also add a note in the code indicating newer programming guideline
> > revisions now recommend forceRM=0?
> > 
> 
> Hi Thinh,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Since forceRM should now always be 0, and the reset value of forceRM is
> already 0, the  function parameter force=false effectively becomes a
> no-op. Would you recommend we drop the 'bool force' argument from stop
> active transfers API entirely (documenting the forceRM behavior in a
> comment)? 
> Or would you prefer we keep the parameter and just have all callers pass
> 'false' , so the API/framework stays in place in case a future IP/version
> needs it again?
> 
> Let me know which approach you'd prefer and I'll send an updated patch.
> 

Can you separate the functional changes from the cleanup changes? Please
send one patch for the forceRM=0 and a separate patch for removing the
function parameter.

Thanks,
Thinh

      reply	other threads:[~2026-08-10 22:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-06 23:40 [PATCH 0/1] Add version check for setting ForceRM Elson Serrao
2026-08-06 23:40 ` [PATCH 1/1] usb: dwc3: gadget: add " Elson Serrao
2026-08-07  0:19 ` [PATCH 0/1] Add " Thinh Nguyen
2026-08-10 20:44   ` Elson Serrao
2026-08-10 22:35     ` Thinh Nguyen [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=anpRMnKIRwll8g14@vbox \
    --to=thinh.nguyen@synopsys.com \
    --cc=elson.serrao@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --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