Hi,
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:25 AM Artur Petrosyan
<Arthur.Petrosyan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 5/2/2019 03:58, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:15 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is an attempt to rehash commit 0cf884e819e0 ("usb: dwc2: add bus
> >> suspend/resume for dwc2") on ToT. That commit was reverted in commit
> >> b0bb9bb6ce01 ("Revert "usb: dwc2: add bus suspend/resume for dwc2"")
> >> because apparently it broke the Altera SOCFPGA.
> >>
> >> With all the changes that have happened to dwc2 in the meantime, it's
> >> possible that the Altera SOCFPGA will just magically work with this
> >> change now. ...and it would be good to get bus suspend/resume
> >> implemented.
> >>
> >> This change is a forward port of one that's been living in the Chrome
> >> OS 3.14 kernel tree.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> This patch was last posted at:
> >>
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lkml.kernel.org_r_1446237173-2D15263-2D1-2Dgit-2Dsend-2Demail-2Ddianders-40chromium.org&d=DwIBaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=9hPBFKCJ_nBjJhGVrrlYOeOQjP_HlVzYqrC_D7niMJI&m=7rxT8EFX9mqUDtTL4P7iuzYNsYROe9rxHGCresSKPTg&s=lTaNUA2XIYPat417fkd1A4Zpvb5eyYtTc1H_NIfW8Vw&e=
> >>
> >> ...and appears to have died the death of silence. Maybe it could get
> >> some bake time in linuxnext if we can't find any proactive testing?
> >>
> >> I will also freely admit that I don't know tons about the theory
> >> behind this patch. I'm mostly just re-hashing the original commit
> >> from Kever that was reverted since:
> >> * Turning on partial power down on rk3288 doesn't "just work". I
> >> don't get hotplug events. This is despite dwc2 auto-detecting that
> >> we are power optimized.
> >> * If we don't do something like this commit we don't get into as low
> >> of a power mode.
> >
> > OK, I spent the day digging more into this patch to confirm that it's
> > really the right thing to do. ...and it still seems to be.
> >
> > First off: I'm pretty sure the above sentence "If we don't do
> > something like this commit we don't get into as low of a power mode."
> > is totally wrong. Luckily it's "after the cut" and not part of the
> > commit message. Specifically I did a bunch of power testing and I
> > couldn't find any instance saving power after this patch.
> >
> > ...but, then I looked more carefully at all the history of this
> > commit. I ended up at:
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__chromium-2Dreview.googlesource.com_c_chromiumos_third-5Fparty_kernel_-2B_306265_&d=DwIBaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=9hPBFKCJ_nBjJhGVrrlYOeOQjP_HlVzYqrC_D7niMJI&m=7rxT8EFX9mqUDtTL4P7iuzYNsYROe9rxHGCresSKPTg&s=LiyyIyaCPmr88nJeI7TCGtoJBFLRWir_reikYtAHHDw&e=
> Looking at this code review I see that this patch fixes whatever issues
> you have on Chrome OS 3.14. But your patch has landed on the top of
> latest Kernel version. With the latest version I think you would not
> have the regression issue.
> So you are fixing Chrome OS 3.14.
I'm confused why you ignored the rest of my email where I said I also
ported it to 4.19 (which, from a dwc2 host point of view, is pretty
much mainline) and saw that the patch was still needed.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
