Hi Claus & Thinh, >-----Original Message----- >From: Claus H. Stovgaard [mailto:cst@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 2:59 AM >To: Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Greg Kroah-Hartman ><gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Anurag Kumar Vulisha ><anuragku@xxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: configfs: Add lpm_Ux_disable > >Hi Thinh > >On tir, 2019-05-07 at 18:53 +0000, Thinh Nguyen wrote: >> Claus H. Stovgaard wrote: >> > >> > Where Anurags patch focus on setting U1/U2 latency in the BOS >> > descriptor from the devicetree, this patch focuses on having a >> > configfs >> > interface for forcing the UDC (here the dwc3) to not enable U1/U2 >> > and >> > reject the SET_SEL(U1/U2). >> > >> > Looking forward to input. >> > >> > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.spinic >> > s.net_lists_linux- >> > >2Dusb_msg179732.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=u9FYoxKtyh >> > jrGFcyixFYqTjw1ZX0VsG2d8FCmzkTY- >> > >w&m=wKdyWmYpbW791LAm7rYwvFYx5E0bjENyXZzHvK4vyFo&s=es7kki6iuLJUp2rJn >> > zP9alXKyfJPNSfyxTVCKKDd_rQ&e= >> > [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.spinic >> > s.net_lists_linux- >> > >2Dusb_msg179393.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=u9FYoxKtyh >> > jrGFcyixFYqTjw1ZX0VsG2d8FCmzkTY- >> > >w&m=wKdyWmYpbW791LAm7rYwvFYx5E0bjENyXZzHvK4vyFo&s=cFTmO9wPf7b6TZx >FU >> > AAIJM0Z_wM1ttNIc1rct0uR6co&e= >> > >> > >> >> I'm not sure who will submit the patch to make change to DWC3 for >> disabling U1/U2 (Anurag or you), but can you split your patch between >> dwc3 and configfs. > >Have just written with Anurag, and he will submit a new patch set, >where he has taken the control in ep0.c from my patch, and combined >with his devicetree bindings. So the plan is to drop the configfs >interface completely, keep the devicetree binding names (dis-u1-entry- >quirk) and let it do 3 things. >*Sets the latency to 0 in the BOS >*Disable U1/U2 acceptence >*Disable U1/U2 initiating >This also include rejecting SET_SEL. > >We think this is the best option, and then dropping this patch as it >is. > >I will just send and email later on this thread, when the patch is >available on marc.info as a link for reference to the future. > I have sent the v2 patch series with the changes that Claus mentioned above. The patch can be found here https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=155730212618388&w=2 Thanks, Anurag Kumar Vulisha
