On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 17:14 +0800, Ikjoon Jang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 2:49 PM Chunfeng Yun (云春峰)
> <Chunfeng.Yun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 19:54 +0800, Ikjoon Jang wrote:
> > > Hi Chunfeng,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Chunfeng Yun <
> > > chunfeng.yun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Use @bw_budget_table[] to update fs bus bandwidth due to
> > > > not all microframes consume @bw_cost_per_microframe, see
> > > > setup_sch_info().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > v2: new patch, move from another series
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c | 17 +++++++----------
> > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c
> > > > b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c
> > > > index cffcaf4dfa9f..83abd28269ca 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c
> > > > @@ -458,8 +458,8 @@ static int check_fs_bus_bw(struct
> > > > mu3h_sch_ep_info *sch_ep, int offset)
> > > > * Compared with hs bus, no matter what ep
> > > > type,
> > > > * the hub will always delay one uframe to send
> > > > data
> > > > */
> > > > - for (j = 0; j < sch_ep->cs_count; j++) {
> > > > - tmp = tt->fs_bus_bw[base + j] + sch_ep-
> > > > > bw_cost_per_microframe;
> > > >
> > > > + for (j = 0; j < sch_ep->num_budget_microframes;
> > > > j++) {
> > > > + tmp = tt->fs_bus_bw[base + j] + sch_ep-
> > > > > bw_budget_table[j];
> > >
> > > I'm worrying about this case with two endpoints,
> > > * EP1OUT: isochronous, maxpacket=192: bw_budget_table[] = { 188,
> > > 188,
> > > 0, ... }
> > > * EP2IN: interrupt, maxpacket=64: bw_budget_table[] = { 0, 0, 64,
> > > 64,
> > > ... }
> > > (Is this correct bw_budget_table contents for those eps?)
> >
> > Yes, ep1out isoc use two uframe, ep2in intr use a extra cs;
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if it's okay for those two endpoints to be allocated
> > > on the same u-frame slot.
> > > Can you please check if this is okay for xhci-mtk?
> >
> > Already test it this afternoon, can transfer data rightly on our
> > dvt
> > env.
> >
> > > (I feel like I already asked the same questions many times.)
> >
> > Yes, as said before, prefer to use bw_budget_table[], if there is
> > issue, we can fix it by building this table.
>
> So do you mean such an allocation shouldn't be a problem by IP
> design?
Yes, at least on our dvt platform
>
> This patch starts to allow such an allocation (again).
> But i remember my earlier tests showed that when those two eps
> in the above example are allocated on the same u-frame slot,
> xhci-mtk puts "SSPLIT for EP2" between
> "SSPLIT-start and SSPLIT-end for EP1OUT transaction",
> which is a spec violation.
Which section in usb2.0 spec?
> Hub will generate bit stuffing errors on the
> full-speed bus.
which platform?
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > > if (tmp > FS_PAYLOAD_MAX)
> > > > return -ESCH_BW_OVERFLOW;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -534,21 +534,18 @@ static void update_sch_tt(struct
> > > > mu3h_sch_ep_info *sch_ep, bool used)
> > > > {
> > > > struct mu3h_sch_tt *tt = sch_ep->sch_tt;
> > > > u32 base, num_esit;
> > > > - int bw_updated;
> > > > int i, j;
> > > >
> > > > num_esit = XHCI_MTK_MAX_ESIT / sch_ep->esit;
> > > >
> > > > - if (used)
> > > > - bw_updated = sch_ep->bw_cost_per_microframe;
> > > > - else
> > > > - bw_updated = -sch_ep->bw_cost_per_microframe;
> > > > -
> > > > for (i = 0; i < num_esit; i++) {
> > > > base = sch_ep->offset + i * sch_ep->esit;
> > > >
> > > > - for (j = 0; j < sch_ep->cs_count; j++)
> > > > - tt->fs_bus_bw[base + j] += bw_updated;
> > > > + for (j = 0; j < sch_ep->num_budget_microframes;
> > > > j++)
> > > > + if (used)
> > > > + tt->fs_bus_bw[base + j] +=
> > > > sch_ep-
> > > > > bw_budget_table[j];
> > > >
> > > > + else
> > > > + tt->fs_bus_bw[base + j] -=
> > > > sch_ep-
> > > > > bw_budget_table[j];
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > if (used)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.18.0
> > > >
