Hi Prashanth,
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 07:10:25PM +0530, Prashanth K wrote:
> On 15-09-23 06:02 pm, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 04:37:47PM +0530, Prashanth K wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11-09-23 06:19 pm, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 02:34:15PM +0530, Prashanth K wrote:
> > > > > Currently if ucsi_send_command() fails, then we bail out without
> > > > > clearing EVENT_PENDING flag. So when the next connector change
> > > > > event comes, ucsi_connector_change() won't queue the con->work,
> > > > > because of which none of the new events will be processed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fix this by clearing EVENT_PENDING flag if ucsi_send_command()
> > > > > fails.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.16
> > > > > Fixes: 512df95b9432 ("usb: typec: ucsi: Better fix for missing unplug events issue")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Prashanth K <quic_prashk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c | 1 +
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c
> > > > > index c6dfe3d..509c67c 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c
> > > > > @@ -884,6 +884,7 @@ static void ucsi_handle_connector_change(struct work_struct *work)
> > > > > if (ret < 0) {
> > > > > dev_err(ucsi->dev, "%s: GET_CONNECTOR_STATUS failed (%d)\n",
> > > > > __func__, ret);
> > > > > + clear_bit(EVENT_PENDING, &con->ucsi->flags);
> > > > > goto out_unlock;
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be better to just move that label (out_unlock) above
> > > > the point where clear_bit() is already called instead of separately
> > > > calling it like that. That way the Connector Change Event will
> > > > also get acknowledged.
> > > Do we really need to ACK in this case since we didn't process the current
> > > connector change event
> >
> > You won't get the next event before the first one was ACK'd, right?
> >
>
> The spec says that we need to ACK if we received AND processed a CCI
>
> "4.5.4 Acknowledge Command Completion and/or Change Indication (R)
> This command is used to acknowledge to the PPM that the OPM received and
> processed a Command Completion and/or a Connector Change Indication."
>
> And here in this case, we have received, but not processed the event.
> So I'm not really sure what to do here in this case. If we don't send an
> ACK, then would the PPM think that OPM is not responding and reset it?
> OR would it resend the previous event again since we didn't ACK?
Every PPM behaves differently.
Did you actually see that happening - GET_CONNECTOR_STATUS failed? Can
you reproduce it?
thanks,
--
heikki
