> -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah Sharp [mailto:sarah.a.sharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 4:22 AM > To: Xu, Andiry > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5 v2] xHCI: report USB3.0 portstatus comply with > USB3.0 specification > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:59:13AM +0800, Andiry Xu wrote: > > USB3.0 specification has different wPortStatus and wPortChange > > definitions from USB2.0 specification. Since USB3 root hub and USB2 > > root hub are split now and USB3 hub only has USB3 protocol ports, we > > should modify the portstatus and portchange report of USB3 ports to > > comply with USB3.0 specification. > > Andiry, > > It looks like you report the port link state and BH reset status for > the USB 2.0 roothub, here: > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci- > hub.c > > index a0aa431..7c9e171 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-hub.c > > @@ -441,13 +441,19 @@ int xhci_hub_control(struct usb_hcd *hcd, u16 > typeReq, u16 wValue, > > status |= USB_PORT_STAT_C_ENABLE << 16; > > if ((temp & PORT_OCC)) > > status |= USB_PORT_STAT_C_OVERCURRENT << 16; > > + if ((temp & PORT_PLC)) > > + status |= USB_PORT_STAT_C_LINK_STATE << 16; > > + if ((temp & PORT_WRC)) > > + status |= USB_PORT_STAT_C_BH_RESET << 16; > > You should only or in the link state and BH reset if this is a USB 3.0 > roothub, correct? External USB 2.0 hubs won't report link state > changes or warm reset changes. I suppose the xHCI host controller > isn't supposed to set those bits for USB 2.0 ports, but I'd rather > protect against buggy hosts. > Yes, you're right. The warm reset change report should be applied to USB3.0 hub only. But USB2 protocol ports will report port link state change too. Shall we just ignore it for USB2.0 root hub? > Also, I think the port link state reporting for the USB 3.0 roothub has > a bug in it: > > > + /* Port Link State */ > > + if (hcd->speed == HCD_USB3) > > + status |= (temp & PORT_PLS_MASK); > > The link state is almost identical between the external USB 3.0 hub > fields and the xHCI fields, except that xHCI reports a "resume" state > of 0xF, and the USB 3.0 bus spec lists the 0xF value as reserved. So > the USB core wouldn't know what to make of the link state being set to > resume. I'm not sure what state we should report to the USB core when > the xHC sets the state to resume. Perhaps U0? The state machine in > figure 34 shows that's the next state after the Resume state. > Thanks for point out this, I didn't notice that Resume state is not in USB3.0 specification. What state does external USB3.0 hub report in this case? Thanks, Andiry -- 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
