[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/6] usb: ci_udc: fixes and cleanups

["Jörg Krause" <jkrause@posteo.de>]

On 07/01/2014 11:31 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 03:25 PM, J?rg Krause wrote:
>> On 07/01/2014 07:41 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> This is a series of small fixes and cleanups either required by those
>>> fixes, or enabled now that the fixes are made.
>>>
>>> I hope that either patch 1 or 4 might fix the issues J?rg is seeing, but
>>> I'm not sure that will happen. The other patches shouldn't change any
>>> behaviour.
>>>
>>> Stephen Warren (6):
>>>     usb: ci_udc: fix ci_flush_{qh,qtd} calls in ci_udc_probe()
>>>     usb: ci_udc: don't assume QTDs are adjacent when transmitting ZLPs
>>>     usb: ci_udc: lift ilist size calculations to global scope
>>>     usb: ci_udc: fix items array size/stride calculation
>>>     usb: ci_udc: remove controller.items array
>>>     usb: ci_udc: don't memalign() struct ci_req allocations
>>>
>>>    drivers/usb/gadget/ci_udc.c | 62
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>>    drivers/usb/gadget/ci_udc.h |  1 -
>>>    2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>>
>> Good news! The last patch usb: ci_udc: don't memalign() struct ci_req
>> allocations removes the timeout error after starting the fourth run of
>> tftp in a row.
>>
>> This is how I tested. Checked out u-boot-usb/master branch. Applied the
>> necessary patches to support our board. Applied the patches step after
>> step. After applying a patch reset the board and run tftp from console
>> until an error occured, which is always the fourth run.
> How many times did you boot the board for each patch? I'm more
> interested in how often the first TFTP after a reset/power-on passes or
> fails, so it would be nice to boot the board many times to see what
> happens to the first TFTP invocation too. This is especially true since
> you'd indicated before that the problem was (at least sometimes) visible
> on the first TFTP invocation, and this "it fails the fourth time"
> symptom is something completely new.

The problem with the problems on the first run was before applying the 
patch usb: ci_udc: fix interaction with CONFIG_USB_ETH_CDC, which was 
not upstream on u-boot-imx branch at the moment of writing the error 
report. After applying the patch and setting the cachline size to 32, 
the first three runs of tftp works fine, but always the fourth time it 
fails.

>> This is the case
>> until applying patch usb: ci_udc: don't memalign() struct ci_req
>> allocations, which throws no timeout error within running tftp about 60
>> times in a row.
> That's quite odd. That patch definitely should not affect behaviour (and
> indeed I only sent it as an after-thought). If it does, then the only
> explanation I can think of is that the malloc heap's alignment changed,
> which just happens to hide the bug you're seeing. No doubt, there is
> still some lingering cache-flushing bug or similar...
>
> BTW, did you fix the U-Boot header files in your board support patches,
> so that everything correctly knows that the cache line size is 32? I
> think it's mandatory to fix that issue before testing the USB code.

Yes, I did this: #define CONFIG_SYS_CACHELINE_SIZE 32