Hi Thinh, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thinh Nguyen <[email protected]> > Sent: 2020年5月21日 9:56 > To: Jun Li <[email protected]>; Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>; Jun Li > <[email protected]> > Cc: John Stultz <[email protected]>; lkml > <[email protected]>; Yu > Chen <[email protected]>; Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>; > Rob > Herring <[email protected]>; Mark Rutland <[email protected]>; ShuFan Lee > <[email protected]>; Heikki Krogerus <[email protected]>; > Suzuki K Poulose <[email protected]>; Chunfeng Yun > <[email protected]>; Hans de Goede <[email protected]>; Andy > Shevchenko > <[email protected]>; Valentin Schneider <[email protected]>; > Jack Pham <[email protected]>; Linux USB List <[email protected]>; > open > list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS > <[email protected]>; > Peter Chen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] usb: dwc3: Increase timeout for CmdAct cleared by > device > controller > > Thinh Nguyen wrote: > > Jun Li wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Thinh Nguyen <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: 2020年5月19日 14:46 > >>> To: Jun Li <[email protected]>; Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>; Jun Li > >>> <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: John Stultz <[email protected]>; lkml > >>> <[email protected]>; Yu Chen <[email protected]>; Greg > >>> Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>; Rob Herring > >>> <[email protected]>; Mark Rutland <[email protected]>; ShuFan > >>> Lee <[email protected]>; Heikki Krogerus > >>> <[email protected]>; > >>> Suzuki K Poulose <[email protected]>; Chunfeng Yun > >>> <[email protected]>; Hans de Goede <[email protected]>; > >>> Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>; Valentin Schneider > >>> <[email protected]>; Jack Pham <[email protected]>; > >>> Linux USB List <[email protected]>; open list:OPEN FIRMWARE > >>> AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS <[email protected]>; > >>> Peter Chen <[email protected]> > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] usb: dwc3: Increase timeout for CmdAct > >>> cleared by device controller > >>> > >>> Thinh Nguyen wrote: > >>>> Jun Li wrote: > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Felipe Balbi > >>>>>> Sent: 2020年5月16日 19:57 > >>>>>> To: Jun Li <[email protected]>; Thinh Nguyen > >>>>>> <[email protected]>; Jun Li <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Cc: John Stultz <[email protected]>; lkml > >>>>>> <[email protected]>; Yu Chen <[email protected]>; > >>>>>> Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>; Rob Herring > >>>>>> <[email protected]>; Mark Rutland <[email protected]>; ShuFan > >>>>>> Lee <[email protected]>; Heikki Krogerus > >>>>>> <[email protected]>; > >>>>>> Suzuki K Poulose <[email protected]>; Chunfeng Yun > >>>>>> <[email protected]>; Hans de Goede <[email protected]>; > >>>>>> Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>; Valentin Schneider > >>>>>> <[email protected]>; Jack Pham <[email protected]>; > >>>>>> Linux USB List <[email protected]>; open list:OPEN > >>>>>> FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS > >>>>>> <[email protected]>; Peter Chen <[email protected]>; > >>>>>> Thinh Nguyen <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 3/9] usb: dwc3: Increase timeout for > >>>>>> CmdAct cleared by device controller > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jun Li <[email protected]> writes: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Thinh, could you comment this? > >>>>>>>>> You only need to wake up the usb2 phy when issuing the command > >>>>>>>>> while running in highspeed or below. If you're running in SS > >>>>>>>>> or higher, internally the controller does it for you for usb3 phy. > >>>>>>>>> In Jun's case, it seems like it takes longer for his phy to wake up. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> IMO, in this case, I think it's fine to increase the command > >>>>>>>>> timeout. > >>>>>>>> Is there an upper limit to this? Is 32k clock the slowest that > >>>>>>>> can be fed to the PHY as a suspend clock? > >>>>>>> Yes, 32K clock is the slowest, Per DWC3 document on Power Down > >>>>>>> Scale (bits 31:19 of GCTL): > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Power Down Scale (PwrDnScale) > >>>>>>> The USB3 suspend_clk input replaces pipe3_rx_pclk as a clock > >>>>>>> source to a small part of the USB3 controller that operates when > >>>>>>> the SS PHY is in its lowest power (P3) state, and therefore does not > >>>>>>> provide > a clock. > >>>>>>> The Power Down Scale field specifies how many suspend_clk > >>>>>>> periods fit into a 16 kHz clock period. When performing the > >>>>>>> division, round up the remainder. > >>>>>>> For example, when using an 8-bit/16-bit/32-bit PHY and 25-MHz > >>>>>>> Suspend clock, Power Down Scale = 25000 kHz/16 kHz = 13'd1563 > >>>>>>> (rounder up) > >>>>>>> Note: > >>>>>>> - Minimum Suspend clock frequency is 32 kHz > >>>>>>> - Maximum Suspend clock frequency is 125 MHz" > >>>>>> Cool, now do we have an upper bound for how many clock cycles it > >>>>>> takes to wake up the PHY? > >>>>> My understanding is this ep command does not wake up the SS PHY, > >>>>> the SS PHY still stays at P3 when execute this ep command. The > >>>>> time required here is to wait controller complete something for > >>>>> this ep command with 32K clock. > >>>> Sorry I made a mistake. You're right. Just checked with one of the > >>>> RTL engineers, and it doesn't need to wake up the phy. However, if > >>>> it is eSS speed, it may take longer time as the command may be > >>>> completing with the suspend clock. > >>>> > >>> What's the value for GCTL[7:6]? > >> 2'b00 > >> > >> Thanks > >> Li Jun > > (Sorry for the delay reply) > > > > If it's 0, then the ram clock should be the same as the bus_clk, which > > is odd since you mentioned that the suspend_clk is used instead while in P3. > > Just checked with the RTL engineer, even if GCTL[7:6] is set to 0, internally > it > can still run with suspend clock during P3.
Thanks for your check. > > > Anyway, I was looking for a way maybe to improve the speed during > > issuing a command. One way is to set GUSB3PIPECTL[17]=0, and it should > > wakeup the phy anytime. I think Felipe suggested it. It's odd that it > > doesn't work for you. I don't have other ideas beside increasing the > > command timeout. > > > > In any case, increasing the timeout should be fine with me. It maybe > difficult to > determine the max timeout base on the slowest clock rate and number of cycles. > Different controller and controller versions behave differently and may have > different number of clock cycles to complete a command. > > The RTL engineer recommended timeout to be at least 1ms (which maybe more > than the > polling rate of this patch). I'm fine with either the rate provided by this > tested > patch or higher. OK, I will change the timeout to be 1ms if no object from Felipe. thanks Li Jun > > BR, > Thinh

