On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 06:44:46PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03/05/16 10:06, Jun Li wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >>>>>>>>> /**
> >>>>>>>>> + * usb_gadget_start - start the usb gadget controller and
> >>>>>>>>> +connect to bus
> >>>>>>>>> + * @gadget: the gadget device to start
> >>>>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>>>> + * This is external API for use by OTG core.
> >>>>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>>>> + * Start the usb device controller and connect to bus (enable
> >> pull).
> >>>>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>>>> +static int usb_gadget_start(struct usb_gadget *gadget) {
> >>>>>>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>>>>>> + struct usb_udc *udc = NULL;
> >>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>> + dev_dbg(&gadget->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
> >>>>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&udc_lock);
> >>>>>>>>> + list_for_each_entry(udc, &udc_list, list)
> >>>>>>>>> + if (udc->gadget == gadget)
> >>>>>>>>> + goto found;
> >>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>> + dev_err(gadget->dev.parent, "%s: gadget not registered.\n",
> >>>>>>>>> + __func__);
> >>>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&udc_lock);
> >>>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>> +found:
> >>>>>>>>> + ret = usb_gadget_udc_start(udc);
> >>>>>>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>>>>>> + dev_err(&udc->dev, "USB Device Controller didn't
> >>>> start: %d\n",
> >>>>>>>>> + ret);
> >>>>>>>>> + else
> >>>>>>>>> + usb_udc_connect_control(udc);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For drd, it's fine, but for real otg, gadget connect should be
> >>>>>>>> done by
> >>>>>>>> loc_conn() instead of gadget start.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is upto the OTG state machine to call gadget_start() when it
> >>>>>>> needs to connect to the bus (i.e. loc_conn()). I see no point in
> >>>>>>> calling gadget start before.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do you see any issue in doing so?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is what OTG state machine does:
> >>>>>> case OTG_STATE_B_PERIPHERAL:
> >>>>>> otg_chrg_vbus(otg, 0);
> >>>>>> otg_loc_sof(otg, 0);
> >>>>>> otg_set_protocol(fsm, PROTO_GADGET);
> >>>>>> otg_loc_conn(otg, 1);
> >>>>>> break;
> >>>>
> >>>> On second thoughts, after seen the OTG state machine.
> >>>> otg_set_protocol(fsm, PROTO_GADGET); is always followed by
> >>>> otg_loc_conn(otg, 1); And whenever protocol changes to anything other
> >>>> the PROTO_GADGET, we use otg_loc_conn(otg, 0);
> >>>>
> >>>> So otg_loc_conn seems redundant. Can we just get rid of it?
> >>>>
> >>>> usb_gadget_start() implies that gadget controller starts up and
> >>>> enables pull.
> >>>> usb_gadget_stop() implies that gadget controller disables pull and
> >> stops.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you please explain why just these 2 APIs are not sufficient for
> >>>> full OTG?
> >>>>
> >>>> Do we want anything to happen between gadget controller start/stop
> >>>> and pull on/off?
> >>>
> >>> "loc_conn" is a standard output parameter in OTG spec, it deserves a
> >>> separate api, yes, current implementation of OTG state machine code
> >>> seems allow you to combine the 2 things into one, but don't do that,
> >>> because they do not always happen together, e.g. for peripheral only B
> >>> device (also a part OTG spec: section 7.3), will be fixed in gadget
> >>> mode, but it will do gadget connect and disconnect in its diff states,
> >>> so, to make the framework common, let's keep them separated.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry but I didn't understand your comment about "it will do gadget
> >> connect and disconnect in its diff states"
> >
> > Gadget connect means loc_conn(1).
> >
> >>
> >> I am reading the OTG v2.0 specification and loc_conn is always true when
> >> b_peripheral or a_peripheral is true and false otherwise.
> >
> > If you only talk about these 2 states, yes, loc_conn is ture.
> >
> >>
> >> loc_conn is just an internal state variable and it corresponds to our
> >> gadget_start/stop() state.
> >
> > It's not an internal variable, there are OTG state machine
> > parameters tables(table 7-x) in OTG spec which have clear lists
> > which are "internal variable", which are "input", which are "output"...
> >
> > Those APIs are driven directly from OTG spec, easily understood so
> > code reader can know what's those APIs for. For real OTG, I don't
> > see the benefit if get rid of it.
>
> OK, no issues if we don't get rid of it. But I am still in favor of
> doing a connect in usb_gadget_start(), because
>
> 1) If we split connect/disconnect() and usb_gadget_start/stop() then there is
> additional overhead of keeping track whether connect was called or not during
> usb_gadget_stop(). Plus we need to take care that users don't call connect/disconnect
> outside of start/stop. It is just complicating things.
>
> 2) for many controllers there is no difference between run/stop and
> connect/disconnect. i.e. a single register bit controls both.
>
> 3) it fits well with the OTG specification. OTG specification says
> that loc_conn *variable* must be true *after* the device has signalled a connect.
> So OTG state machine can safely set loc_conn variable to true after doing
> otg_set_protocol(fsm, PROTO_GADGET); and set it to false otherwise.
>
> Note, OTG specification does not say to take any action based on loc_conn.
> It is just a connect indicator variable. So we might have to fix this in the
> OTG state machine.
>
> My suggestion is to keep it simple for now. Try the OTG implementation,
> and later if we find issues then extend it as required.
>
I agree with you, roger.
loc_conn action is only needed for peripheral, we can't do real !loc_conn
at host mode. Besides, loc_conn is the output, we need to set/clear it after
state has changed, and current gadget framework already takes well for
connection and disconnection state, so it is better to delete loc_conn
action at otg_fsm->ops, and only keeps it as indicator for OTG FSM
reference.
--
Best Regards,
Peter Chen
--
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
