On 2/12/2016 2:05 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > John Youn <John.Youn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> On 2/10/2016 1:07 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>> John Youn <John.Youn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>> Basically assign all the resources in advance. >>>>> >>>>> I thought about that, but wouldn't this, essentially, enable all >>>>> endpoints unconditionally ? This could, potentially, increase power >>>>> consumption on some systems, right ? This could also cause "spurious" >>>>> interrupts if a bogus host tries to move data on an endpoint which >>>>> hasn't been enabled yet. >>>> >>>> No, I mean to just assign resources withouth configuring or enabling >>>> the endpoint. I have tested this approach and it works. But I still >>> >>> oh ok. >>> >>>> need to verify that it won't conflict with anything, such as streams. >>> >>> yeah, we would probably have an issue with streams. IIRC, we allocate >>> one transfer resource per stream, right ? >> >> Ends up that is not a concern. Streams always use a single resource >> per endpoint, not stream. > > hey, that's great. So what's the idea ? static resource assignment on > endpoint initialization ? > Yes that's it. I will go ahead and submit this fix. See the commit message for details. I verified with engineers and did a round of testing and so far no problems. If you prefer to only assign resources as needed, I have a separate fix that I can submit if you want. Also, I think we need to handle backporting separately as neither patch applies cleanly to 4.3. Regards, John -- 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
