> On Jan 4, 2020, at 00:54, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>>> On Jan 3, 2020, at 23:21, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>>>
>>>> Realtek Hub (0bda:0x0487) used in Dell Dock WD19 sometimes drops off the
>>>> bus when bringing underlying ports from U3 to U0.
>>>>
>>>> After some expirements and guessworks, the hub itself needs to be U0
>>>> during setting its port's link state back to U0.
>>>>
>>>> So add a new quirk to let the hub disables LPM on setting U0 for its
>>>> downstream facing ports.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/usb/core/hub.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>>>> drivers/usb/core/quirks.c | 7 +++++++
>>>> include/linux/usb/quirks.h | 3 +++
>>>> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
>>>> index f229ad6952c0..35a035781c5a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
>>>> @@ -3533,9 +3533,17 @@ int usb_port_resume(struct usb_device *udev, pm_message_t msg)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /* see 7.1.7.7; affects power usage, but not budgeting */
>>>> - if (hub_is_superspeed(hub->hdev))
>>>> + if (hub_is_superspeed(hub->hdev)) {
>>>> + if (hub->hdev->quirks & USB_QUIRK_DISABLE_LPM_ON_U0) {
>>>> + usb_lock_device(hub->hdev);
>>>> + usb_unlocked_disable_lpm(hub->hdev);
>>>> + }
>>>> status = hub_set_port_link_state(hub, port1, USB_SS_PORT_LS_U0);
>>>> - else
>>>> + if (hub->hdev->quirks & USB_QUIRK_DISABLE_LPM_ON_U0) {
>>>> + usb_unlocked_enable_lpm(hub->hdev);
>>>> + usb_unlock_device(hub->hdev);
>>>
>>> The locking here seems questionable. Doesn't this code sometimes get
>>> called with the hub already locked? Or with the child device locked
>>> (in which case locking the hub would violate the normal locking order:
>>> parent first, child second)?
>
> I did a little checking. In many cases the child device _will_ be
> locked at this point.
>
>> Maybe introduce a new lock? The lock however will only be used by this specific hub.
>> But I still want the LPM can be enabled for this hub.
>
> Do you really need to lock the hub at all? What would the lock protect
> against?
There can be multiple usb_port_resume() run at the same time for different ports, so this is to prevent LPM enable/disable race.
Kai-Heng
>
> Alan Stern
