On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, sundeep subbaraya wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:34:08PM +0530, sundeep subbaraya wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> > >> in ep_queue driver starts dma transfer from/to IP buffer to/from req->buf. > >> > >> If transfer is completed then request is not added to ep request queue > >> > >> and returns from ep_queue. > >> > >> If transfer is not completed (actual < length) then request is added > >> > >> to queue and returns from ep_queue. > >> > > > >> > > This is wrong. Why wouldn't you give gadget driver the chance to decide > >> > > if it needs to queue the request again or not ? > >> > > >> > When does gadget driver decides to queue the same request again? > >> > if -EBUSY is returned from ep_queue or req.status != 0 in completion > >> > routine? > >> > >> whenever it so decides. Different gadget drivers might have different > >> requirements. The code is open and sits under drivers/usb/gadget/ why > >> don't you have a read ? > > > > I get the impression that the two of you are arguing past each other. > > It appears that Sundeep is talking about transferring data from the > > gadget driver's buffer to an internal buffer in the UDC hardware, but > > Felipe is talking about transferring data from the UDC to the host. > > > > As I understand it, Sundeep said that when the gadget driver queues a > > data-IN request, the UDC driver copies as much of the data buffer as > > possible into a hardware FIFO. If it succeeds in copying all the data > > into the FIFO then the request's completion routine gets called > > immediately, even though the data doesn't get sent from the FIFO to the > > host until the host asks for it. > > > > If only part of the data can be copied into the FIFO then the request > > is added to the ep's request queue before the usb_ep_queue() call > > returns. When space becomes available in the FIFO, the data will be > > copied and eventually sent to the host. When all the data has been > > copied to the FIFO, the request's completion routine will be called. > > > > Thus there never is any need for the gadget driver to queue the request > > again. An incomplete transfer means the FIFO didn't have enough room > > when the request was submitted; it doesn't mean that the data didn't > > eventually get sent to the host. > > Exactly Alan,this is what I was trying to say. Probably I was not > clear in explaining. I didnt see > any harm this way and even this implementation is same like > at91_udc.c. I have been reading > mas_storage to understand when does gadget driver tries to enqueue a > request again. Since > different gadget drivers might have different requirements (agree with > Felipe), wanted to > know criteria for queuing a same request again. > > I will change this implementation as per Felipe comments and test with > some of the gadgets. Wait until you hear what Felipe has to say about this discussion. Maybe he will decide that the original implementation was correct. Alan Stern -- 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
