On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Michael Grzeschik wrote: > Hi Thinh, > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:29:14AM +0000, Thinh Nguyen wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024, Thinh Nguyen wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024, Thinh Nguyen wrote: > > > > My concern here is for the case where transfer_in_flight == true and > > > > > > I mean transfer_in_flight == false > > > > > > > list_empty(started_list) == false. That means that the requests in the > > > > started_list are completed but are not given back to the gadget driver. > > > > > > > > Since they remained in the started_list, they will be resubmitted again > > > > on the next usb_ep_queue. We may send duplicate transfers right? > > > > Actually, since the requests are completed, the HWO bits are cleared, > > nothing is submitted and no duplicate. But since the requests are not > > given back yet from the started_list, then the next Start_Transfer > > command will begin with the TRB address of the completed request > > (HWO=0), the controller may not process the next TRBs. Have you tested > > this scenario? > > > > > > > > > > You can try to cleanup requests in the started_list, but you need to be > > > > careful to make sure you're not out of sync with the transfer completion > > > > events and new requests from gadget driver. > > > > > > > > Was the problem you encounter due to no_interrupt settings where the > > it was set to the last request of the uvc data pump? > > > > if that's the case, can UVC function driver make sure to not set > > no_interrupt to the last request of the data pump from the UVC? > > Actually no. What I want to do is to ensure that the dwc3 stream > is stopped when the hardware was drained. Which is a valid point > in my case. Since we are actually potentially enqueueing new request > in the complete handler, be it zero length or real transfers. > > Calling kick_transfer on an drained hw will absolutely run into > missed isocs if the irq thread was called late. We saw this on real hardware, > where another irq_thread was scheduled with the same priority as the > dwc3 irq_thread but was running so long that the HW was running dry in > between the hw irq and the actual dwc3_irq_thread run. > Right. Unfortunately, dwc3 can only "guess" when UVC function stops pumping more request or whether it's due to some large latency. The logic to workaround this underrun issue will not be foolproof. Perhaps we can improve upon it, but the solution is better implement at the UVC function driver. I thought we have the mechanism in UVC function now to ensure queuing enough zero-length requests to account for underrun/latency issue? What's the issue now? BR, Thinh
