Hi, Jun Li <lijun.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jun Li <lijun.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> 于2020年5月7日周四 上午11:08写道： >> >> John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> 于2020年5月7日周四 上午6:27写道： >> > >> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:00 AM Jun Li <lijun.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> 于2019年10月30日周三 上午5:18写道： >> > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 2:11 AM Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > > John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > > > > > From: Yu Chen <chenyu56@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > It needs more time for the device controller to clear the CmdAct of >> > > > > > DEPCMD on Hisilicon Kirin Soc. >> > > > > >> > > > > Why does it need more time? Why is it so that no other platform needs >> > > > > more time, only this one? And which command, specifically, causes >> > > > > problem? >> > > >> > > Sorry for my back to this so late. >> > > >> > > This change is required on my dwc3 based HW too, I gave a check >> > > and the reason is suspend_clk is used in case the PIPE phy is at P3, >> > > this slow clock makes my EP command below timeout. >> > > >> > > dwc3_gadget_ep_cmd: ep0out: cmd 'Set Endpoint Configuration' [401] >> > > params 00001000 00000500 00000000 --> status: Timed Out >> > > >> > > Success case takes about 400us to complete, see below trace(44.286278 >> > > - 44.285897 = 0.000381): >> > > >> > > configfs_acm.sh-822 [000] d..1 44.285896: dwc3_writel: addr >> > > 000000006d59aae1 value 00000401 >> > > configfs_acm.sh-822 [000] d..1 44.285897: dwc3_readl: addr >> > > 000000006d59aae1 value 00000401 >> > > ... ... >> > > configfs_acm.sh-822 [000] d..1 44.286278: dwc3_readl: addr >> > > 000000006d59aae1 value 00000001 >> > > configfs_acm.sh-822 [000] d..1 44.286279: dwc3_gadget_ep_cmd: >> > > ep0out: cmd 'Set Endpoint Configuration' [401] params 00001000 >> > > 00000500 00000000 --> status: Successful >> > > >> > > Hi John, >> > > >> > > Do you still have this problem? if yes, What's the value of >> > > USBLNKST[21:18] when the timeout happens? >> > >> > Sorry. As I mentioned, I was working to upstream a patchset that I >> > hadn't created, so the context I had was limited. As I couldn't >> > reproduce an issue without the change on the device I had, I figured >> > it would be best to drop it. >> >> That was fine. >> > >> > However, as you have some analysis and rational for why such a change >> > would be needed, I don't have an objection to it. Do you want to >> > resubmit the patch with your explanation and detailed log above in the >> > commit message? >> >> Sure, I will resubmit the patch with my explanation added in commit message. > > Hi John > > A second think of this, I feel use readl_poll_timeout_atomic() to wait by time > is more proper here, so I create a new patch to address this also other > registers polling, see below patch with you CCed: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11536081/ Fixing a bug has nothing to do with using readl_poll_timeout_atomic(). Please don't mix things as it just makes review time consuming. Let's find out what the bug is all about, only then should we consider moving over to readl_poll_timeout_atomic(). -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
