On 30.06.2021 21:21, Alan Stern wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 02:46:47PM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On 24.06.2021 16:23, Alan Stern wrote: >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 06:40:25AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> On 23.06.2021 19:41, Alan Stern wrote: >>>>> Are there any systems beside the SAMA7G5 and others you tested which >>>>> might be affected by this patch? Do they all work pretty much the >>>>> same way? (I want to make sure no others will be adversely affected >>>>> by this change.) >>>> >>>> I tested it on SAMA7G5, SAMA5D2 and SAM9X60. I tested the suspend/resume >>>> to/from mem. On SAMA5D2 and SAM9X60 there is no clock provided by >>>> transceiver A to OHCI. I encountered no issues on tested systems. These IPs >>>> are also present on SAMA5D3 and SAMA5D4 systems which I haven't tested as I >>>> expect to behave as SAMA5D2 (as the clocking scheme is the same with >>>> SAMA5D2). I can also try it on a SAMA5D3 (I don't have a SAMA5D4 with me at >>>> the moment), tough, just to be sure nothing is broken there too. >>> >>> That doesn't answer my question. I asked if there were any systems >>> which might be affected by your patch, and you listed a bunch of >>> systems that _aren't_ affected (that is, they continue to work >>> properly). >> >> I wrongly understood the initial question. >> >>> >>> What systems might run into trouble with this patch? >> >> These are all I haven't tested and might be affected: >> AT91RM9200, >> SAM9260, >> SAM9261, >> SAM9263, >> SAM9N12, >> SAM9X35, >> SAM9G45. >> >> The last two (SAM9X35 and SAM9G45) have the same clocking scheme with >> SAMA5D2 (which I tested). For the rest of them I cannot find the clocking >> scheme in datasheet and don't have them to test (at least at the moment). > > I see. That seems reasonable; the others are probably the same as the > ones you tested. > > Did you ever answer the question that Nicolas raised back on June 9 in: > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=162324242003349&w=2 Not directly. I replied previously in this thread "For run-time control (via ohci_at91_hub_control()), I agree with you that the current implemented approach is not healthy (taking into account the clock scheme above) and the fact that we do force the ports suspend on ohci_at91_hub_control()". Nicolas was referring to ohci_at91_port_suspend() calls in ohci_at91_hub_control() so I agreed with him that work might need to be done also for this function. Thank you, Claudiu Beznea > > Alan Stern >
