Re: [PATCH] Revert "usb: dwc3: gadget: drop unnecessary loop when cleaning up TRBs"

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

 



On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 02:48:00PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:37:40PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> writes:
> > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 05:09:39PM +0900, Masakazu Mokuno wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >> 
> > >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:54:13 -0500
> > >> Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:48:28PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >> > > From: Ville Syrj舁・<ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> > > 
> > >> > > This reverts commit 8f2c9544aba636134303105ecb164190a39dece4.
> > >> > > 
> > >> > > As it breaks g_ether on my Baytrail FFRD8 device. Everything starts out
> > >> > > fine, but after a bit of data has been transferred it just stops
> > >> > > flowing.
> > >> > > 
> > >> > > Note that I do get a bunch of these "NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 08"
> > >> > > when booting the machine, but I'm not really sure if they're related
> > >> > > to this problem.
> > >> > 
> > >> > I have a feeling your problem is elsewhere. We *are* completing one TRB
> > >> > at a time. 
> > >> 
> > >> If usb_request.no_interrupt is flagged, it seems dwc3 does not set IOC
> > >> on the corresponding TRB.  Does it break the assumption every TRB
> > >> (without SG) will trigger one corresponding EP event?
> > >> u_ether is the function module that utilizes 'no_interrupt' flag.
> > >
> > > XferInProgress should still trigger. Besides, I tested with the exact
> > > same setup (different SoC though), just look at the thread.
> > 
> > I found a way to reproduce this on my end. What I was missing was the
> > use of request.no_interrupt. We won't get XferInProgress for all TRBs if
> > IOC isn't set in all of them.
> > 
> > I'll apply this patch ASAP as it fixes the problem I managed to
> > reproduce (ping -s 40000 makes it fail here)
> 
> I can see the commit in your next branch, but shouldn't it go in as a
> fix? I guess it should also be tagged with the stable tag.

It does have the "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx". Sorry about the noise
:-).


Thanks,

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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]