Re: [PATCH 0/9 v7] xHCI: Isoc transfer implementation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 06:41:49PM +0800, Xu, Andiry wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sarah Sharp [mailto:sarah.a.sharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:44 AM
> > To: Xu, Andiry
> > Cc: linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9 v7] xHCI: Isoc transfer implementation
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 04:48:37PM +0800, Andiry Xu wrote:
> > > Hi Sarah,
> > >
> > > This is xHCI isoc transfer implementation patchset v7.
> > >
> > > Changelog from v6:
> > > 1. Break the xHCI: handle_tx_event() refine patch into six smaller
> > > patches.
> > >
> > > Again, this patchset is based on revert-link-trb branch,
> > > commit 5162708fc3c0.
> > 
> > I assume you based your work off the revert-link-trb branch because
> you
> > ran into issues with overwriting the link TRBs when queueing
> isochronous
> > transfers.  However, the patches on that branch are not going to be
> > merged.  They were just a quick test to see if the link TRB change was
> > an issue for someone.
> > 
> > The patches to fix the known bugs in the link TRB handoff change from
> > John have been sent to Greg, and one has already been sent out by
> Linus.
> > I don't want to revert John's patch, as it's needed for streams
> > communications to work properly.  So you're going to have to add a
> patch
> > to work around the isochronous issues with John's patch.
> > 
> > I think the patch will be similar to the control transfer fix (commit
> > 6cc30d85a5bf61248ff0e1f0e0f15fe718bae378 in Linus' tree).  Basically,
> > you need to indicate to queue_trb() whether more TDs are coming if
> > you're going to queue multiple isochronous TDs without calling
> > prepare_transfer() in between each TD.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the information, I'll rebase the patchset on your master
> branch. I've checked the control transfer fix, but I wonder what you
> mean by saying that I do not to need to call prepare_transfer() for each
> TD? As I can see, the prepare_transfer() do initialization for each TD,
> add it to the ep's ring, which is necessary for each TD. Does the
> control transfer fix affect prepare_transfer() calling? I don't quite
> understand.

Sorry, I made assumptions about your code.  See the other email I sent.

> > I've updated my master branch to be against 2.6.35-rc4, with some
> > additional bug fixes that Greg has queued.  Can you please base your
> > next patch set against that?  I'll send more comments on the isoc
> > patchset later today so you can do the changes all at once.
> > 
> 
> Thanks. I'll refine the patches and do another 24-hour stress test
> before resubmit.
> 
> I got another question. When I'm debugging the PM patches, I found that
> when hub driver disable a USB3 protocol port and then reset the port, it
> will transition to a USB2 protocol port. This will affect USB3 device
> re-initialization during S3 resume. Is this normal behavior? If I do not
> disable the USB3 protocol port, the USB3.0 device will be recognized
> normally later.

There's a patch to fix that issue on the master branch.

Sarah Sharp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux