On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 08:30:04AM +0100, Robert Baldyga wrote: > Hi Felipe, > > On 12/23/2014 07:31 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 07:34:15AM +0100, Robert Baldyga wrote: > >> On 12/22/2014 05:34 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:05:22AM +0100, Robert Baldyga wrote: > >>>> On 12/15/2014 06:13 AM, Peter Chen wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:17:28PM +0100, Robert Baldyga wrote: > >>>>>> As usb function drivers assumes that all usb request will be completed > >>>>>> before function unbind call, we should supply such behavior. In some > >>>>>> cases ep_disable() won't kill all request effectively, because some > >>>>>> IN requests can be in running state. In such situation it's possible > >>>>>> to have unbind function called before last request completion, which > >>>>>> can cause problems. > >>>>> > >>>>> Doesn't the function's disable/unbind should call usb_ep_dequeue to make > >>>>> sure the transfer has ended? > >>>> > >>>> USB function drivers like ECM or HID surely doesn't. It looks like > >>>> there's assumption that all requests will be completed by UDC driver. > >>> > >>> that's a bug on those drivers :-) > >> > >> So we can't make assumptions that requests will be completed in > >> ep_disable()? > > > > oh, no you can. I misread it. > > > >>>> Function ep_disable() should complete requests in hardware driver, but > >>>> at least in DWC2 driver not all requests are completed at this stage > >>> > >>> and that's a bug on dwc2 :-) > >> > >> I have already found that out. Another UDC drivers simply kill all > >> request without waiting for currently running, so I did the same in > >> DWC2. Here is my patch: > >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg118698.html > > > > should be in my pull request already. > > It looks like you applied wrong patch. I meant patch titled "drivers: > usb: dwc2: remove 'force' parameter from kill_all_requests()" is the > latest and complete fix. The patch you have applied named "usb: dwc2: > gadget: kill requests with 'force' in s3c_hsotg_udc_stop()" do not solve > problem completely without changes in udc-core, which we concluded are > not acceptable. > > Sorry for the mess. I understand that titles of both patches are > confusing similar. Can you send a patch on top fixing things up ? Either that or a revert followed by correct patch. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
