RE: [PATCH v3 0/6] usb: host: change TPL support behaviour

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 07:57:12AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:08:02AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Peter Chen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:12:42AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Peter Chen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:48:15PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Peter Chen wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Greg & Alan, any comments for this patchset?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In patch 2/6, why did you move the !is_targeted(udev)
> > > > > > > > > > code from
> > > > > > > > > > usb_enumerate_device_otg() to usb_enumerate_device()?
> > > > > > > > > > Why not leave the code where it is?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > TPL support is also needed for embedded host, not only otg host.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But usb_enumerate_device_otg() gets called for all types of
> > > > > > > host, right?  At least, it gets called whenever
> > > > > > > usb_enumerate_device() runs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, it contains "#ifdef CONFIG_USB_OTG".  But your patch has "if
> (...
> > > > > > > && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB_OTG))", so the behavior is the
> > > > > > > same.  Why move the code if there's no change in behavior?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At former code, the tpl support judgement (in function
> > > > > > is_targeted) will only be called if CONFIG_USB_OTG is defined,
> > > > > > but now, we need tpl support for all targeted hosts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why we need IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB_OTG) as last conditions at
> > > > > > if conditions, the reason is the operation which the B-device
> > > > > > may want switch to host even if it is not at A's TPL is only for OTG host.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only side effect in is_targeted() is the dev_err() message.
> > > > > Are you saying that this dev_err() message needs to appear even
> > > > > when CONFIG_USB_OTG is disabled?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, both embedded host and otg host CAN support TPL, if the
> > > > embedded host SHOULD support TPL, it should show an err message if
> > > > the unsupported device is on the port.
> > > >
> > > > At OTG & EH compliance test plan,
> > > >
> (http://www.usb.org/developers/onthego/otgeh_compliance_plan_1_2.p
> > > > df) page 124, the chapter 7.3.6 A-UUT Unsupported device Message
> > > > test, it needs host prints "Unsupported Device" if the attaching
> > > > device is not supported (without at Targeted Peripheral List).
> > >
> > > Okay, then I have no objections to this patch series.
> > >
> > > Alan Stern
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Will you queue this patchset?
> 
> Ok, will do, give me a day or so, thanks,
> 

Hi Greg, will this patchset be in your usb-next tree for v3.18?
Thanks.

Peter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux