Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 17:52 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
>> No modern device should need the padding. No old device will be able
>to
>> use the SG feature as implemented. You only enable it on USB3, don't
>
>On XHCI.
>
>> you? If this feature is restricted to USB3 capable devices, then it
>most
>> certainly can be restricted to ZLP capable devices with absolutely no
>> difference in the resulting set of supported devices.
>
>No, USB 3.0 uses no companion controllers, so you can have devices
>of any speed connected to it.
>
Ah, right. I don't own such modern hardware, but I should have known this anyway.
This still doesn't change the fact that the driver is brand new for brand new devices. I believe we should assume such devices will support ZLPs unless we have documentation stating anything else.
>> Anyway, if you want to keep the padding for SG then maybe this will
>work
>> and allow you to drop the extra struct usbnet field and allocation:
>>
>> if (skb_tailroom(skb) && !dev->can_dma_sg) {
>> skb->data[skb->len] = 0;
>> __skb_put(skb, 1);
>> } else if (dev->can_dma_sg) {
>> sg_set_buf(&urb->sg[urb->num_sgs++],
>skb->data, 1);
>> }
>>
>> I.e. cheat and use the skb->data buffer twice, if that is allowed?
>The
>> actual value of the padding byte should not matter, I believe?
>
>That makes me immediately suspect a violation of the DMA rules.
Sounds likely. And it's an ugly hack in any case. Probably not a good idea. Just one of the many random thoughts I should have kept to myself :-)
Bjørn
--
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
