On Thu, Sep 05, 2024, AKASH KUMAR wrote: > Hi Thinh, > > On 9/5/2024 3:36 AM, Thinh Nguyen wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024, AKASH KUMAR wrote: > > > Hi Thinh, > > > > > > On 9/4/2024 3:41 AM, Thinh Nguyen wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024, Akash Kumar wrote: > > > > > The current logic is rigid, setting num_fifos to fixed values: > > > > > > > > > > 3 for any maxburst greater than 1. > > > > > tx_fifo_resize_max_num for maxburst greater than 6. > > > > > Additionally, it did not differentiate much between bulk and > > > > > isochronous transfers, applying similar logic to both. > > > > > > > > > > The new logic is more dynamic and tailored to the specific needs of > > > > > bulk and isochronous transfers: > > > > > > > > > > Bulk Transfers: Ensures that num_fifos is optimized by considering > > > > > both the maxburst value and the maximum allowed number of FIFOs. > > > > > > > > > > Isochronous Transfers: Ensures that num_fifos is sufficient by > > > > > considering the maxburst value and the maximum packet multiplier. > > > > > > > > > > This change aims to optimize the allocation of Tx FIFOs for both bulk > > > > > and isochronous endpoints, potentially improving data transfer > > > > > efficiency and overall performance. > > > > > It also enhances support for all use cases, which can be tweaked > > > > > with DT parameters and the endpoint’s maxburst and maxpacket. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Akash Kumar <quic_akakum@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Changes for v2: > > > > > Redefine logic for resizing tx fifos. > > > > > > > > > > Changes for v1: > > > > > Added additional condition to allocate tx fifo for hs isoc eps, > > > > > keeping the other resize logic same. > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c | 15 ++++++--------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c > > > > > index 89fc690fdf34..49809a931104 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c > > > > > @@ -778,15 +778,12 @@ static int dwc3_gadget_resize_tx_fifos(struct dwc3_ep *dep) > > > > > ram1_depth = DWC3_RAM1_DEPTH(dwc->hwparams.hwparams7); > > > > > - if ((dep->endpoint.maxburst > 1 && > > > > > - usb_endpoint_xfer_bulk(dep->endpoint.desc)) || > > > > > - usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(dep->endpoint.desc)) > > > > > - num_fifos = 3; > > > > > - > > > > > - if (dep->endpoint.maxburst > 6 && > > > > > - (usb_endpoint_xfer_bulk(dep->endpoint.desc) || > > > > > - usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(dep->endpoint.desc)) && DWC3_IP_IS(DWC31)) > > > > > - num_fifos = dwc->tx_fifo_resize_max_num; > > > > > + if (usb_endpoint_xfer_bulk(dep->endpoint.desc)) > > > > > + num_fifos = min_t(unsigned int, dep->endpoint.maxburst + 1, > > > > > + dwc->tx_fifo_resize_max_num); > > > > > + if (usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(dep->endpoint.desc)) > > > > > + num_fifos = max_t(unsigned int, dep->endpoint.maxburst, > > > > > + usb_endpoint_maxp_mult(dep->endpoint.desc)); > > > > No. Don't mix usb_endpoint_maxp_mult with maxburst like this. Check base > > > > on operating speed. Also, now you're ignoring tx_fifo_resize_max_num for > > > > isoc. > > > Sure will add separate check based on speed. > > > > > > We have to support three versions of CAM support through same dt and image > > > SS/SS+ capable cam which needs 10k fifo > > > HS cams which needs 3K > > > multi UVC cams which needs 1k and 2k fifo > > > > > > Putting any dependency with tx_fifo_resize_max_num, we can't achieve 1k and > > > 10K, > > That doesn't make sense. The tx_fifo_resize_max_num is a configurable > > constraint through devicetree property. How can it not work? > i have tested and i don't have any problem in adding constraint with HS but > for SS > i need to set fifo size of 1K for 1 cam and 10k for other. > if i add any boundary with tx_fifo_resize_max_num (either max or min ) one > of tx fifo size > either 1k or 10K i won't be able to set. So i request you allow to for >=SS > , to decide fifo > size based on maxburst only. i will be pusing patchset3 with that. please > approve consideration this. I still don't understand. Did you try to increase the tx_fifo_resize_max_num via devicetree property? I don't want inconsistent behavior where tx_fifo_resize_max_num applies to some but not others. BR, Thinh
