On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 09:21:39AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sept 2024 at 09:08, Christian A. Ehrhardt <lk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 03:37:25PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 08:58:53AM +0200, Christian A. Ehrhardt wrote: > > > > If the busy indicator is set, all other fields in CCI should be > > > > clear according to the spec. However, some UCSI implementations do > > > > not follow this rule and report bogus data in CCI along with the > > > > busy indicator. Ignore the contents of CCI if the busy indicator is > > > > set. > > > > > > > > If a command timeout is hit it is possible that the EVENT_PENDING > > > > bit is cleared while connector work is still scheduled which can > > > > cause the EVENT_PENDING bit to go out of sync with scheduled connector > > > > work. Check and set the EVENT_PENDING bit on entry to > > > > ucsi_handle_connector_change() to fix this. > > > > > > > > Finally, check UCSI_CCI_BUSY before the return code of ->sync_control. > > > > This ensures that the command is cancelled even if ->sync_control > > > > returns an error (most likely -ETIMEDOUT). > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Anurag Bijea <icaliberdev@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219108 > > > > Bisected-by: Christian Heusel <christian@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Tested-by: Anurag Bijea <icaliberdev@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Fixes: de52aca4d9d5 ("usb: typec: ucsi: Never send a lone connector change ack") > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian A. Ehrhardt <lk@xxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c | 18 ++++++++++++------ > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > Does not apply to my usb-next branch :( > > > > > > Can you rebase and resend this? Or wait until -rc1 is out and rebase > > > and resend then? > > > > I sent a v5 rebased onto usb-next. > > Note, it wasn't marked as v5, it didn't contain a changelog, etc. > Please consider using the `b4` tool to send patches. It automates > versioning, changelog generation, etc. Yes, this needs to be properly marked as such, my patch-bot already noticed that :(
