> From: Alan Stern [mailto:stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:16 AM > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > > > > > Maybe while bringing it back you can remove the checks for SuperSpeed. > > > > > > > > Is there any reason to keep them? > > > > > Okay, that's fine. But it doesn't answer my earlier question: Is there > > > > really any need for the SuperSpeed checks in this patch? > > > > > > > > In other words, will DWC3 continue to work correctly if short_not_ok is > > > > set? > > > > > > Ah, sorry, I missed that. > > > > > > I think so, I don't think the DWC3 driver looks at the short-not-ok flag. > > > But I haven't looked at that driver for a while, so we had better ask > > > Felipe. > > > > > > Felipe? What do you say? > > > > We don't use the short_not_ok at all, that's correct. As long as OUT > > transfers are always aligned on wMaxPacketSize (no matter which speed) > > DWC3 will continue to work. > > That's very clear. So Rajaram, when you redo the patch you can simply > leave out the checks for SuperSpeed. Set or clear the short_not_ok > flag depending only on the size of the bulk transfer, regardless of the > speed. I have a bit of a philosophical problem with that. At SuperSpeed, a short packet has to be OK, because of the way the mass-storage protocol works. So it seems wrong to set short_not_ok for SuperSpeed when we know we will be receiving short packets. But I guess practicality trumps philosophy :) -- Paul -- 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
