Re: USB 3.0 LPM design: pm_qos?

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

 



[Removed linux-pm from the CC: list, as this part of the discussion
has managed to drift away from issues of power management.]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Sarah Sharp wrote:

> > > I've had some slides forwarded to me that have some interesting
> > > electrical captures that show that if a host controller is too fast in
> > > enabling SOFs after resume signaling ends (where too fast is < 1us), the
> > > device doesn't have time to enable its high speed terminations.
> > 
> > Section 7.1.7.7 seems to say that devices have 1.3 us to enable their
> > high-speed terminations.  (Actually it says "they must transition back
> > to high-speed operation, without arbitration, within two low-speed bit
> > times of the K to SE0 transition".  That's an odd way of putting it,
> > but since a low-speed bit lasts for 2/3 us, the meaning is clear.)  If
> > the host controller starts sending SOFs before this then presumably
> > it's not compliant -- although the spec doesn't say that the upstream 
> > port must wait at least this long.  A peculiar omission.
> 
> It may be that they just didn't think about the effect of SOFs.  I know
> the USB-IF certification folks don't have a test for selective suspend,
> since that requires Windows drivers to support it.  They do have a test
> for system suspend and resume, but devices would probably get reset
> after being resumed and the SOF issue would have been missed.

It's not just SOFs; any packet would have the same effect.  The host 
should not start sending any data until the downstream device has had 
its full chance to switch back to high-speed connectivity.

This applies to external hubs as well as to host controllers, by the 
way.  Has anybody measured their characteristics?

> > Was anyone able to find out if some brands of controllers were 
> > consistently better or worse than others?
> 
> It actually seemed to be system specific.  Some laptops one host
> controller version would have random delays, while other laptops with
> the same host controller would have a consistent 6us delay before
> starting SOFs.  So I don't think we can draw any conclusions about one
> brand of controllers being better than another.

Weird.  I can't imagine what would cause that sort of change in 
behavior.

Alan Stern

--
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