Wesley Cheng wrote:
> Hi Thinh,
>
> On 8/11/2021 5:47 PM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
>> Wesley Cheng wrote:
>>> During a USB cable disconnect, or soft disconnect scenario, a pending
>>> SETUP transaction may not be completed, leading to the following
>>> error:
>>>
>>> dwc3 a600000.dwc3: timed out waiting for SETUP phase
>>
>> How could it be a case of cable disconnect? The pullup(0) only applies
>> for soft-disconnect scenario. If the device initiated a disconnect, then
>
> Thanks for the response. I guess this is specific for some use cases,
> but some applications such as ADB will close the FFS EP files after it
> gets the disconnection event, leading to this pullup disable as well.
> So its specific to that particular use case.
Does that mean that the ADB application won't expect a connection until
user intervention or some other notification to do pullup(1)?
>
>> the driver should wait for the control request to complete. If it times
>> out, something is already wrong here. The programming guide only
>> mentions that we should wait for completion, but it doesn't say about
>> recovery in a case of hung transfer. I need to check internally but it
>> should be safe to issue End Transfer.
>>
>
> Yes, what I did was modify a device running the Linux XHCI stack w/o
> reading/sending out the SETUP DATA phase, so that on the device end we'd
> always run into that situation where there's still a pending EP0 TRB queued.
Is this only for validation purpose?
>
> We're running multiple devices with this fix as well, and doing device
> initiated disconnect.
>
>>>
>>> If this occurs, then the entire pullup disable routine is skipped and
>>> proper cleanup and halting of the controller does not complete.
>>> Instead of returning an error (which is ignored from the UDC
>>> perspective), do what is mentioned in the comments and force the
>>> transaction to complete and put the ep0state back to the SETUP phase.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wesley Cheng <wcheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c | 4 ++--
>>> drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c | 6 +++++-
>>> drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.h | 3 +++
>>> 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>>> index 6587394..abfc42b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ep0.c
>>> @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ int dwc3_gadget_ep0_queue(struct usb_ep *ep, struct usb_request *request,
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static void dwc3_ep0_stall_and_restart(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>> +void dwc3_ep0_stall_and_restart(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>> {
>>> struct dwc3_ep *dep;
>>>
>>> @@ -1073,7 +1073,7 @@ void dwc3_ep0_send_delayed_status(struct dwc3 *dwc)
>>> __dwc3_ep0_do_control_status(dwc, dwc->eps[direction]);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static void dwc3_ep0_end_control_data(struct dwc3 *dwc, struct dwc3_ep *dep)
>>> +void dwc3_ep0_end_control_data(struct dwc3 *dwc, struct dwc3_ep *dep)
>>> {
>>> struct dwc3_gadget_ep_cmd_params params;
>>> u32 cmd;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>> index 54c5a08..a0e2e4d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
>>> @@ -2437,7 +2437,11 @@ static int dwc3_gadget_pullup(struct usb_gadget *g, int is_on)
>>> msecs_to_jiffies(DWC3_PULL_UP_TIMEOUT));
>>> if (ret == 0) {
>>> dev_err(dwc->dev, "timed out waiting for SETUP phase\n");
>>> - return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&dwc->lock, flags);
>>> + dwc3_ep0_end_control_data(dwc, dwc->eps[0]);
>>> + dwc3_ep0_end_control_data(dwc, dwc->eps[1]);
>>
>> End transfer command takes time, need to wait for it to complete before
>> issuing Start transfer again. Also, why restart again when it's about to
>> be disconnected.
>
> I can try without restarting it again, and see if that works. Instead
> of waiting for the command complete event, can we set the ForceRM bit,
> similar to what we do for dwc3_remove_requests()?
>
ForceRM=1 means that the controller will ignore updating the TRBs
(including not clearing the HWO and remain transfer size). The driver
still needs to wait for the command to complete before issuing Start
Transfer command. Otherwise Start Transfer won't go through. If we know
that we're not going to issue Start Transfer any time soon, then we may
be able to get away with ignoring End Transfer command completion.
BR,
Thinh
