On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 01:30:07PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> writes: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 02:08:25PM -0700, John Youn wrote: > >> On 10/26/2016 3:57 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:42:46PM -0700, John Youn wrote: > >> >> Add interrupt moderation interval binding for dwc3. > > > >> >> + - snps,imod_interval: the interrupt moderation interval. > >> This series implements the feature and enables it as a workaround for > >> a particular version of the controller. > > > > ... as a workaround for *what*? Is there a bug in that IP version, or an > > you didn't receive the entire series, I guess. Here's last patch in the > series: No, I did not. Thanks for forwarding this. > This is a workaround for STAR 9000961433 which affects only version > 3.00a of the DWC_usb3 core. This prevents the controller interrupt from > being masked while handling events. Enabling interrupt moderation allows > us to work around this issue because once the GEVNTCOUNT.count is > written the IRQ is immediately deasserted and won't be asserted again > until GEVNTCOUNT.EHB is cleared. > > Signed-off-by: John Youn <johnyoun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c > index 6733838..7fa0832 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c > @@ -1050,6 +1050,18 @@ static void dwc3_check_params(struct dwc3 *dwc) > dwc->imod_interval = 0; > } > > + /* > + * Workaround for STAR 9000961433 which affects only version > + * 3.00a of the DWC_usb3 core. This prevents the controller > + * interrupt from being masked while handling events. IMOD > + * allows us to work around this issue. Enable it for the > + * affected version. > + */ > + if (!dwc->imod_interval && > + (dwc->revision == DWC3_REVISION_300A)) { > + dwc->imod_interval = 1; > + } > + > /* Check the maximum_speed parameter */ > switch (dwc->maximum_speed) { > case USB_SPEED_LOW: > > > integration issue? Does the problem vary per-board? > > > > Generally, if there's a problem that needs to be worked around, we > > describe the problem in the DT (perhaps implicitly in the compatible > > string), and then the kernel chooses the workaround. > > Regardless of the silicon erratum, interrupt moderation is a *feature* > of the IP, common to all instances since revision v3.00a (IIRC). John is > just using interrupt moderation in the context of implementing this > workaround. But the actual feature is valid also without the erratum. Sure, I understand this. > Another thing to remember is that different applications (i.e. boards) > might want to moderate the interrupt for different periods. That's, > again, not related to the erratum at all. ... again, the question is *why*? If this varies per use-case, then it would be better to handle this dynamically -- people can run wildly different use-cases on the same hardware. I'm not sure that it makes sense for this to be in the DT, though I may have misunderstood. Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html