> -----Original Message-----
> From: ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 12:06 AM
> To: Jun Li <jun.li@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jun Li <lijun.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>; Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Heikki Krogerus
> <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux USB List
> <linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> cy_huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: tcpm: Fix if vbus before cc, hard_reset_count
> not reset issue
>
> Jun Li <jun.li@xxxxxxx> 於 2020年10月9日 週五 下午2:12寫道：
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 6:13 PM
> > > To: Jun Li <lijun.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Greg KH
> > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Heikki Krogerus
> > > <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux USB List
> > > <linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > cy_huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jun Li <jun.li@xxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: tcpm: Fix if vbus before cc,
> > > hard_reset_count not reset issue
> > >
> > > ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@xxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年10月7日 週三 上午1:39寫
> 道：
> > > >
> > > > Jun Li <lijun.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年10月7日 週三 上午12:52寫
> 道：
> > > > >
> > > > > ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@xxxxxxxxx> 于2020年10月6日周二 下午12:38
> 写
> > > 道：
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年10月5日 週一 下午
> 11:30
> > > 寫道：
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/5/20 4:08 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > [ ... ]
> > > > > > > >>> What ever happened with this patch, is there still disagreement?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Yes, there is. I wouldn't have added the conditional
> > > > > > > >> without reason, and I am concerned that removing it
> > > > > > > >> entirely will open
> > > another problem.
> > > > > > > >> Feel free to apply, though - I can't prove that my
> > > > > > > >> concern is valid, and after all we'll get reports from
> > > > > > > >> the field later if
> > > it is.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ok, can I get an ack so I know who to come back to in the
> > > > > > > > future if there are issues? :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not from me, for the reasons I stated. I would be ok with
> > > > > > > something
> > > like:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
> > > > > > > + if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port) ||
> > > > > > > + (tcpm_cc_is_open(port->cc1) &&
> > > > > > > + tcpm_cc_is_open(port->cc2)))
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to narrow down the condition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have tried the above comment and It doesn't work.
> > > > > > How about to change the judgement like as below
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
> > > > > > + if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port) ||
> > > > > > + !port->vbus_present)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The hard_reset_count not reset issue is following by the below
> > > > > > order 1. VBUS off ( at the same time, cc is still detected as
> > > > > > attached)
> > > > > > port->attached become false and cc is not open
> > > > > > 2. After that, cc detached.
> > > > > > due to port->attached is false, tcpm_detach() directly return.
> > > > >
> > > > > If tcpm_detach() return directly, then how your patch can reset
> > > > > hard_reset_count?
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, it can. We know vbus_present change from true to false and cc
> > > > detach both trigger tcpm_detach.
> > > > My change is whenever tcpm_detach to be called, hard_reset_count
> > > > will be reset to zero.
> > > >
> > > > > I am seeing the same issue on my platform, the proposed change:
> > > > > - if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
> > > > > - port->hard_reset_count = 0;
> > > > > + port->hard_reset_count = 0;
> > > > > can't resolve it on my platform.
> > > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what's your condition. Could you directly paste the
> > > > tcpm log for the check?
> > > > > How about reset hard_reset_count in SNK_READY?
> > > > > @@ -3325,6 +3329,7 @@ static void run_state_machine(struct
> > > > > tcpm_port
> > > *port)
> > > > > case SNK_READY:
> > > > > port->try_snk_count = 0;
> > > > > port->update_sink_caps = false;
> > > > > + port->hard_reset_count = 0;
> > > > > if (port->explicit_contract) {
> > > > > typec_set_pwr_opmode(port->typec_port,
> > > > > TYPEC_PWR_MODE_PD);
> > > > >
> > > > > can this resolve your problem?
> > > > I'm not sure. It need to have a try, then I can answer you.
> > > > But from USBPD spec, the hard_reset_count need to reset zero only
> > > > when 1. At src state, pe_src_send_cap and receive GoodCRC 2. At
> > > > snk state, pe_snk_evaluate_cap need to reset hard_reset_count
> >
> > 3.
> > 8.3.3.3.8 PE_SNK_Hard_Reset state
> > "Note: The HardResetCounter is reset on a power cycle or Detach."
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Li Jun
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that's why hard_reset_count is not reset to 0.
> > >
> > > I tried in snk_ready to reset hard_reset_count.
> > > At normal case, it works.
> > > But it seems still the possible fail case like as below.
> > > 200ms -> cc debounce max time
> > > 240ms -> snk_waitcap max time
> > > If the plugin/out period is between (200+240) and (200+ 2* 240)ms ,
> > > and the src side plug out like as the described scenario.
> > > From this case, hard_reset_count may still 1.
> > > And we expect the next plugin hard_reset_count is 0. But not,
> > > actually it never reset.
> > > So at next plugin, only one hard_reset will be sent and reach
> > > hard_reset_count max (2).
> > >
> > > This case is hard to reproduce. But actually it's possible.
> >
> > Make sense.
> >
> > Then I propose doing this at SNK_UNATTACHED @@ -3156,6 +3156,7 @@
> > static void run_state_machine(struct tcpm_port *port)
> > if (!port->non_pd_role_swap)
> > tcpm_swap_complete(port, -ENOTCONN);
> > tcpm_pps_complete(port, -ENOTCONN);
> > + port->hard_reset_count = 0;
> > tcpm_snk_detach(port);
> > if (tcpm_start_toggling(port, TYPEC_CC_RD)) {
> > tcpm_set_state(port, TOGGLING, 0); Li Jun
>
> For the current power role is snk, I think it may work.
> How about the src role? src role only reset the hard_reset_count in
> tcpm_detach and src_ready state?
Sorry, after gave more check on PD sped, this isn't a right solution.
See below
>
> I check the flow that you mentioned in the previous mail. It's really a
> special case from any state to port_reset.
> If the case is considered, how about to reset the hard_reset_count and don't
> care the port is attached or not in tcpm_detach function like as below.
>
> @@ -2789,6 +2789,8 @@ static void tcpm_reset_port(struct tcpm_port *port)
>
> static void tcpm_detach(struct tcpm_port *port) {
> + port->hard_reset_count = 0;
> +
> if (!port->attached)
> return;
>
> @@ -2797,9 +2799,6 @@ static void tcpm_detach(struct tcpm_port *port)
> port->tcpc->set_bist_data(port->tcpc, false);
> }
>
> - if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
> - port->hard_reset_count = 0;
> -
> tcpm_reset_port(port);
> }
>
> Like I mentioned before, whatever the condition is, hard_reset_count must
> be reset to zero during tcpm_detach.
This may not be so correct as you said, I think Guenter's concern is valid.
tcpm_detach() is not *only* be called in cases of *physical* detach
like the function name suggests.
The current proposals may *wrongly* reset this counter.
Let me give an example:
HARD_RESET_SEND -> HARD_RESET_START ->
SNK_HARD_RESET_SINK_OFF -> SNK_HARD_RESET_WAIT_VBUS ->
SNK_UNATTACHED(in case of VBUS doesn't come back in expected duration)
-> call to tcpm_detach()
In this sequence, does the sink need keep the counter? From the PD spec,
I think the answer is yes, sink need this counter to judge if need
do hard reset again or error recovery on later try, see:
Figure 8-67 Sink Port State Diagram
The difference between your case and my example, is your case never turn
off vbus, so will not go to SNK_UNATTACHED, so will not call to tcpm_detach()
after first hard reset.
So
if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
port->hard_reset_count = 0;
should keep as it is, the counter can only be cleared if there is really
physical disconnect by *partner*.
But current tcpm code may have some problem on keeping local CC state if
there is hard reset on-going(port->hard_reset_count > 0), because the
current handling of SNK_UNATTACHED may cause disconnection generated
by *local*(partner actually keeps its CC), e.g. reset polarity and do
drp_toggling, this should be fixed, but this is another patch, I can
try to do this later.
Back to your problem, I think the issue is, at the first tcpm_detach()
the cc disconnect event hasn't happen, so the reset counter is left there
but the port->attached is cleared, then the following(real disconnect)
tcpm_detach() will just return directly due to port->attached is false.
So I guess this will resolve your problem:
@@ -2885,6 +2885,9 @@ static void tcpm_reset_port(struct tcpm_port *port)
static void tcpm_detach(struct tcpm_port *port)
{
+ if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
+ port->hard_reset_count = 0;
+
if (!port->attached)
return;
@@ -2893,9 +2896,6 @@ static void tcpm_detach(struct tcpm_port *port)
port->tcpc->set_bist_data(port->tcpc, false);
}
- if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
- port->hard_reset_count = 0;
-
tcpm_reset_port(port);
}
Compared with current code's condition:
3 static bool tcpm_port_is_disconnected(struct tcpm_port *port)
4 {
5 return (!port->attached && port->cc1 == TYPEC_CC_OPEN &&
6 port->cc2 == TYPEC_CC_OPEN) ||
7 (port->attached && ((port->polarity == TYPEC_POLARITY_CC1 &&
8 port->cc1 == TYPEC_CC_OPEN) ||
9 (port->polarity == TYPEC_POLARITY_CC2 &&
10 port->cc2 == TYPEC_CC_OPEN)));
11 }
My above change is only adding another condition to clear the reset counter:
(!port->attached && port->cc1 == TYPEC_CC_OPEN && port->cc2 == TYPEC_CC_OPEN)
This condition is close to Guenter's suggestion in this thread:
- if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
+ if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port) ||
+ (tcpm_cc_is_open(port->cc1) && tcpm_cc_is_open(port->cc2)))
Hi Guenter, any comments on this?
Thanks
Li Jun
>
> But refer to Guenter's mail, he prefer to narrow down the condition to reset
> this counter.
>
> I think the original thought is important why to put this line there.
>
> Hi, Guenter:
> From the discussion, we really need to know why you put the reset line
> below port attached is false and also make some judgement.
> I think there may be ome condition that we don't considered.
This condition was added at first place, I think my above
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guenter
