On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:45:31AM +0200, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > Dear Alan, > Dear Greg, > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:12:28AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > The thing is, I'm afraid that without these retry loops, some devices > > will stop working. If that happens, we will not be able to keep this > > patch in place; we will just have to accept that we fail the PET test. > > > > Alan Stern > > Does this mean that Linux community leaves no choice but to ship a > forked kernel (with no chance of alignment to upstream) for > organizations which design embedded devices where USB plays a key > role, hence requires passing the USB-IF Compliance Program [*]? We are saying that if you ship such a kernel, we _KNOW_ that it will fail to work in a number of known systems. I doubt you want that to happen if you care about shipping a device, right? > Is there hope to give users a knob (build-time or run-time) which would > enable the behavior expected and thoroughly described in compliance > docs, particularly chapter "6.7.22 A-UUT Device No Response for > connection timeout" of "USB On-The-Go and Embedded Host Automated > Compliance Plan" [**]? Given that the USB-IF has explicitly kicked-out the Linux community from its specification work and orginization, I personally don't really care what they say here. If you are a member of the USB-IF, please work with them to fix the test to reflect real-world systems and not an idealized system. Last I heard, they wanted nothing to do with Linux systems at all :( thanks, greg k-h
