On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:48:18PM +0200, Ferry Toth wrote:
> Op 18-08-2021 om 11:33 schreef Andy Shevchenko:
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 06:28:59PM -0700, Jack Pham wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 01:26:35AM -0700, Jack Pham wrote:
> > > > On DWC_usb3 revisions 3.00a and newer (including DWC_usb31 and
> > > > DWC_usb32) the GUCTL1 register gained the DEV_DECOUPLE_L1L2_EVT
> > > > field (bit 31) which when enabled allows the controller in device
> > > > mode to treat USB 2.0 L1 LPM & L2 events separately.
> > > >
> > > > After commit d1d90dd27254 ("usb: dwc3: gadget: Enable suspend
> > > > events") the controller will now receive events (and therefore
> > > > interrupts) for every state change when entering/exiting either
> > > > L1 or L2 states. Since L1 is handled entirely by the hardware
> > > > and requires no software intervention, there is no need to even
> > > > enable these events and unnecessarily notify the gadget driver.
> > > > Enable the aforementioned bit to help reduce the overall interrupt
> > > > count for these L1 events that don't need to be handled while
> > > > retaining the events for full L2 suspend/wakeup.
> > >
> > > Hi folks in To:
> > >
> > > I'd like to request if any of you could help test this patch on your
> > > boards to help make sure it doesn't cause any regressions since I know
> > > some of the recent dwc3 patches from Qualcomm have been found to break
> > > other devices :(. So I'm hoping to avoid that even for a patch as
> > > small as this.
> > >
> > > Hoping this could be tried out on boards/SoCs such as db845c, hikey960,
> > > Exynos, the Intel "lakes", etc. Ideally this needs validation with a
> > > high-speed connection to a USB 3.x host, which increases the chances
> > > that USB 2.0 Link Power Management is supported.
>
> Merrifield: We currently have
> PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("snps,usb2-gadget-lpm-disable")
>
> Should I retest with this reverted?
Maybe best to leave it, since it looks like you had added this quirk
for other L1 LPM incompatibility issues you faced on this platform.
> > > The overall goal of this patch is to eliminate events generated for
> > > L1 entry/exit, so we should see a slight reduction in interrupt counts
> > > when checking `grep dwc3 /proc/interrupts` for comparable traffic.
>
> I didn't compare interrupts
>
> > Unfortunately I'm quite busy lately with more important stuff and I dunno if I
> > will be able to test this in reasonable time. So, if Ferry volunteers, then we
> > can cover Intel Merrifield platform as well.
> >
>
> Performance unchanged, no regressions found.
> Tested-by: Ferry Toth <fntoth@xxxxxxxxx> # for Merrifield
At least it is a no-op for you. Thanks for verifying!
Jack
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
