On Tue, 6 Nov 2018, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> DATA stage always depends on a usb_ep_queue() from gadget driver. So
> it's always "delayed" in that sense.
However, it's conceivable that some UDC drivers might behave
differently depending on whether the usb_ep_queue call occurs within
the setup callback or after that callback returns. They _shouldn't_,
but they might.
> it avoids all the special cases. UDC drivers can implement a single
> handling for struct usb_request. We could do away with special return
> values and so on...
It's not quite so simple, because the UDC driver will need to keep
track of whether a request queued on ep0 should be in the IN or the OUT
direction. (Maybe they have to do this already, I don't know.)
> > request and the UDC would then need to check whether that request
> > corresponds
> > to a status stage and process it accordingly. A new operation specific to
> > this
>
> no, it wouldn't. UDC would have to check the size of request, that's
> all:
>
> if (r->length == 0)
> special_zlp_handling();
> else
> regular_non_zlp_handling();
Checking the length isn't enough. A data stage can have 0 length.
> But we don't need to care about special return values and the like. We
> don't even need to care (from UDC perspective) if we're dealing with
> 2-stage or 3-stage control transfers (well, dwc3 needs to care because
> of different TRB types that needs to be used, but that's another story)
No, we do need to care because of the direction issue.
> > There's also the fact that requests can specify a completion handler, but
> > only
> > the data stage request would see its completion handler called (unless we
> > require UDCs to call completion requests at the completion of the status
> > stage, but I'm not sure that all UDCs can report the event to the driver,
> > and
> > that would likely be useless as nobody needs that feature).
>
> you still wanna know if the host actually processed your status
> stage. udc-core can (and should) provide a generic status stage
> completion function which, at a minimum, aids with some tracepoints.
Helping with tracepoints is fine. However, I don't think function
drivers really need to know whether the status stage was processed by
the host. Can you point out any examples where such information would
be useful?
> One way to satisfy what you want, with what I want is to have UDC core
> implement something like below:
>
> int usb_ep_start_status_stage(struct usb_gadget *g)
> {
> return usb_ep_queue(g->ep0, &g->ep0_status_request);
> }
>
> special function for you, usb_ep_queue() for me :-p
Sure, this is one of the options Laurent and I have discussed.
> >> (But it does involve a
> >> race in cases where the host gets tired of waiting and issues another
> >> SETUP packet before the processing of the first transfer is finished.)
>
> Host would stall first in that case.
I don't follow. Suppose the host sends a SETUP packet for an IN
transfer, but the gadget takes so long to send the IN data back that
the host times out. So then the host sends a SETUP packet for a new
transfer. No stalls.
(Besides, hosts never send STALL packets anyway. Only peripherals do.)
> Driver is already required to
> handle stalls for several other conditions. If thehre are bugs in that
> area, I'd prefer catching them.
> > To simplify function drivers, do you think the above proposal of adding a
> > flag
> > to the (data stage) request to request an automatic transition to the
> > status
> > stage is a good idea ? We could even possibly invert the logic and
> > transition
>
> no, I don't think so. Making the status phase always explicit is far
> better. UDCs won't have to check flags, or act on magic return
> values. It just won't do anything until a request is queued.
I don't agree. This would be a simple test in a localized area (the
completion callback for control requests). It could even be
implemented by a library routine; the UDC driver would simply have to
call this routine immediately after invoking the callback.
Alan Stern
