On 7/20/2021 4:41 AM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:30:07AM -0700, Wesley Cheng wrote: >> >> >> On 7/13/2021 11:40 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>> Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>> Wesley Cheng wrote: >>>>>>> Some devices have USB compositions which may require multiple endpoints >>>>>>> that support EP bursting. HW defined TX FIFO sizes may not always be >>>>>>> sufficient for these compositions. By utilizing flexible TX FIFO >>>>>>> allocation, this allows for endpoints to request the required FIFO depth to >>>>>>> achieve higher bandwidth. With some higher bMaxBurst configurations, using >>>>>>> a larger TX FIFO size results in better TX throughput. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By introducing the check_config() callback, the resizing logic can fetch >>>>>>> the maximum number of endpoints used in the USB composition (can contain >>>>>>> multiple configurations), which helps ensure that the resizing logic can >>>>>>> fulfill the configuration(s), or return an error to the gadget layer >>>>>>> otherwise during bind time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wesley Cheng <wcheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c | 15 +++ >>>>>>> drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h | 16 ++++ >>>>>>> drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c | 2 + >>>>>>> drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c | 232 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>> 4 files changed, 265 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c >>>>>>> index ba74ad7..b194aecd 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c >>>>>>> @@ -1267,6 +1267,7 @@ static void dwc3_get_properties(struct dwc3 *dwc) >>>>>>> u8 rx_max_burst_prd; >>>>>>> u8 tx_thr_num_pkt_prd; >>>>>>> u8 tx_max_burst_prd; >>>>>>> + u8 tx_fifo_resize_max_num; >>>>>>> const char *usb_psy_name; >>>>>>> int ret; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @@ -1282,6 +1283,13 @@ static void dwc3_get_properties(struct dwc3 *dwc) >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> hird_threshold = 12; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + /* >>>>>>> + * default to a TXFIFO size large enough to fit 6 max packets. This >>>>>>> + * allows for systems with larger bus latencies to have some headroom >>>>>>> + * for endpoints that have a large bMaxBurst value. >>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>> + tx_fifo_resize_max_num = 6; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> dwc->maximum_speed = usb_get_maximum_speed(dev); >>>>>>> dwc->max_ssp_rate = usb_get_maximum_ssp_rate(dev); >>>>>>> dwc->dr_mode = usb_get_dr_mode(dev); >>>>>>> @@ -1325,6 +1333,11 @@ static void dwc3_get_properties(struct dwc3 *dwc) >>>>>>> &tx_thr_num_pkt_prd); >>>>>>> device_property_read_u8(dev, "snps,tx-max-burst-prd", >>>>>>> &tx_max_burst_prd); >>>>>>> + dwc->do_fifo_resize = device_property_read_bool(dev, >>>>>>> + "tx-fifo-resize"); >>>>>>> + if (dwc->do_fifo_resize) >>>>>>> + device_property_read_u8(dev, "tx-fifo-max-num", >>>>>>> + &tx_fifo_resize_max_num); >>>>>> >>>>>> Why is this check here? The dwc->tx_fifo_resize_max_num should store >>>>>> whatever property the user sets. Whether the driver wants to use this >>>>> >>>>> Ack! >>>>> >>>>>> property should depend on "dwc->do_fifo_resize". Also why don't we have >>>>>> "snps," prefix to be consistent with the other properties? >>>>> >>>>> Ack! >>>>> >>>>>> Can we enforce to a single property? If the designer wants to enable >>>>>> this feature, he/she can to provide the tx-fifo-max-num. This would >>>>>> simplify the driver a bit. Since this is to optimize for performance, >>>>>> the user should know/want/test the specific value if they want to set >>>>>> for their setup and not hoping that the default setting not break their >>>>>> setup. So we can remove the "do_fifo_resize" property and just check >>>>>> whether tx_fifo_resize_max_num is set. >>>>> >>>>> Ack! >>>>> >>>>> All very valid points :-) >>>>> >> >> Hi Thinh/Felipe, >> >>>> >>>> Looks like this series already landed in Greg's testing branch. Not sure >>>> how we usually handle this to address some of our concerns. Add fix >>>> patches on top of Greg's testing branch? >>> >>> yup, no choice anymore :-( >>> >> >> Let me review your feedback, which had some good points. We can add a >> change addressing everything on top of what is merged on Greg's branch. Hi Greg, > > Any hint as to when these fixups will be sent? > Will get something by mid-week next week. Sorry have been occupied with tasks on my end. Thanks Wesley Cheng -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
