On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> (One possible approach would be to have the setup routine return >>>> different values for explicit and implicit status stages -- for >>>> example, return 1 if it wants to submit an explicit status request. >>>> That wouldn't be very different from the current >>>> USB_GADGET_DELAYED_STATUS approach.) >>> >>> not really, no. The idea was for composite.c and/or functions to support >>> both methods (temporarily) and use "gadget->wants_explicit_stages" to >>> explicitly queue DATA and STATUS. That would mean that f_mass_storage >>> wouldn't have to return DELAYED_STATUS if >>> (gadget->wants_explicit_stages). >>> >>> After all UDCs are converted over and set wants_explicit_stages (which >>> should all be done in a single series), then we get rid of the flag and >>> the older method of DELAYED_STATUS. >> >> (Sorry for late reply due to my holiday) >> I also met the problem pointed by Alan, from my test, I still want to >> need one return value to indicate if it wants to submit an explicit >> status request. Think about the Control-IN with a data stage, we can >> not get the STATUS phase request from usb_ep_queue() call, and we need > > why not? wLength tells you that this is a 3-stage transfer. Gadget > driver should be able to figure out that it needs to usb_ep_queue() > another request for status stage. I tried again, but still can not work. Suppose the no-data control: (1) SET_ADDRESS request: function driver will not queue one request for status phase by usb_ep_queue() call. (2) SET_CONFIGURATION request: function driver will queue one 0-length request for status phase by usb_ep_queue() call, especially for mass_storage driver, it will queue one request for status phase later. So I am not sure how the Gadget driver can figure out that it needs to usb_ep_queue() another request for status stage when handling the no-data control? >> to handle this STATUS phase request in dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(). But >> Control-OUT will get one 0-length IN request for the status stage from >> usb_ep_queue(), so we need one return value from setup routine to > > no we don't :-) > >> distinguish these in dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(), or we can not handle >> status request correctly. Maybe I missed something else. >>> >>>> On the other hand, I am very doubtful about requiring explicit setup >>>> requests. >>> >>> right, me too ;-) >> >> So do you suggest me continue to try to do this? Thanks. > > explicit setup? no > explicit status? yes > > If you don't wanna do it, it's fine :-) I'll just add to my TODO > list. It just depends on how much other tasks you have on your end ;-) > > -- > balbi -- Baolin.wang Best Regards -- 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
