On 10/29/18 4:02 AM, Minas Harutyunyan wrote:
Hi Hal,
On 10/26/2018 6:38 PM, Hal Emmerich wrote:
From 04fbf78e4e569bf872f1ffcb0a6f9b89569dc913 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Hal Emmerich <hal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 21:48:08 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] usb: dwc2: disable power_down on rockchip devices
The bug would let the usb controller enter partial power down,
which was formally known as hibernate, upon boot if nothing was plugged
in to the port. Partial power down couldn't be exited properly, so any
usb devices plugged in after boot would not be usable.
Before the name change, params.hibernation was false by default, so
_dwc2_hcd_suspend() would skip entering hibernation. With the
rename, _dwc2_hcd_suspend() was changed to use params.power_down
to decide whether or not to enter partial power down.
Since params.power_down is non-zero by default, it needs to be set
to 0 for rockchip devices to restore functionality.
This bug was reported in the linux-usb thread:
REGRESSION: usb: dwc2: USB device not seen after boot
The commit that caused this regression is:
6d23ee9caa6790aea047f9aca7f3c03cb8d96eb6
Signed-off-by: Hal Emmerich <hal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Minas Harutyunyan <hminas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/usb/dwc2/params.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc2/params.c b/drivers/usb/dwc2/params.c
index bf7052e037d6..09292dc977e4 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/dwc2/params.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/dwc2/params.c
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static void dwc2_set_rk_params(struct dwc2_hsotg *hsotg)
p->host_perio_tx_fifo_size = 256;
p->ahbcfg = GAHBCFG_HBSTLEN_INCR16 <<
GAHBCFG_HBSTLEN_SHIFT;
+ p->power_down = 0;
}
static void dwc2_set_ltq_params(struct dwc2_hsotg *hsotg)
--
2.11.0
Could you please elaborate. In subject mentioned that it's "v2" patch.
But looks like its fully same as v1 patch. If not, then where new
version patch updates description.
Thanks,
Minas
Hey Minas,
felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mentioned that he was unable to apply the original
patch so I remade the patch, and confirmed I could apply it cleanly to the
current tree and marked it v2. He also mentioned that I should "collect" your
ack, which I'm not familiar with. I added:
>> Acked-by: Minas Harutyunyan <hminas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
which may or may not be the correct way of doing things. Let me know if I am
doing that incorrectly. Sorry if I shouldn't have marked this v2.
Also, just to let you know, my mailserver says that your mailserver refuses to
collect my email. My servers not on any blocklists and seems to send mail
elsewhere fine so I'm guessing your mailserver has mistakenly categorized me as
spam on its own. Seems my mail still gets through to you from the list though,
so not a big deal.
Sorry if I'm not doing some part of this correctly.
Thanks,
Evan
