Roger Quadros <rog...@ti.com> writes:
>>>> For something that simple, we wouldn't even need to use OTG FSM layer
>>>> because that brings no benefit for such a simple requirement.
>>> no no. I think you got it wrong. I'm not using the OTG FSM layer at all :).
>> what are all the otg_fsm mentions then? Also you have:
>>  +   struct usb_otg          otg;
>>  +   struct otg_fsm          otg_fsm;
> I'll get rid of them. They aren't really needed.
> Now I see why you thought I was using the otg_fsm layer. :)

fair enough

>>>> Can you either confirm or refute the statement above?
>>> The real problem was that if host adapter was removed during a system 
>>> suspend
>>> then while resuming XHCI was locking up like below. This is probably because
>>> we're trying to remove/Halt the HCD in the otg_irq_handler before XHCI 
>>> driver has resumed?
>>> How can we ensure that we call dwc3_host_exit() only *after* XHCI driver 
>>> has resumed?
>> Well, xHCI is our child, so driver model should *already* be
>> guaranteeing that, no? Specially since you're calling this from
>> ->complete() which happens after ->resume() has been called for the
>> entire tree. It's true, however, that dwc3's ->complete() will be called
>> before xhci's ->complete(). Is this the problem you're pointing at? Or
>> do you mean xHCI is runtime suspended (or runtime resuming) while you
>> call dwc3_host_exit()? If that's the case, then there's a bug in xHCI
>> itself.
> Yes dwc3->complete() being called before xhci->complete(), and so HCD being
> removed before xhci->complete() causes the lockup.
> It could be a bug in xHCI driver as well.

I see...

>>> We need a way to mask the OTG events without loosing them while they are 
>>> masked.
>>> Do you know how that could be achieved?
>> masking doesn't clear events. It just masks them. Look at gadget.c for
>> how we do it. Basically, the code we have here is racy, really racy and
>> will cause hard-to-debug lockups. Your code can only work with
>> IRQF_ONESHOT, which we don't want to add back.
>> In any case, to mask events, you set BIT 31 in GEVNTSIZ register. Just
>> copy it from gadget.c ;-)
> Isn't GEVNTSIZ specific to device side? We're talking about the OTG block 
> here.

that's true, sorry.

> Are you sure that setting bit 31 of GEVNTSIZ will mask OTG_irq? I don't think 
> so.
> Note that OTG_IRQ is a separate IRQ line than PERIPHERAL_IRQ.

man, there's really no way to mask OTG events. This can be bad :-)

John, can you confirm if there's really no way of masking OTG events
without loosing them?

>>>>> + /* OEVTEN = 0 */
>>>>> + dwc3_otg_disable_events(dwc, DWC3_OTG_ALL_EVENTS);
>>>>> + /* OEVTEN.ConIDStsChngEn = 1. Instead we enable all events */
>>>>> + dwc3_otg_enable_events(dwc, DWC3_OTG_ALL_EVENTS);
>>>> oh, disable everything and enable everything right after. What gives?
>>> I did this following Fig 11.4. But there there don't enable all events,
>>> so it was a good idea to be on a clean slate by disabling all events first
>>> and then only enabling selected events.
>>> In any case I think it is good practice. i.e. clear before OR operation?
>>> FYI. dwc3_otg_enable_events doesn't clear the events that are not enabled so
>>> if some old event not part of enable_mask was enabled it will stay enabled.
>> can't this result in IRQ triggering forever and us not handling it? ;-)
> Why should enabling events trigger IRQ? IRQ will trigger only when the
> event actually happens no?

heh, right :-) What I mean is that you might enable an interrupt event
which you don't clear, because you don't support it or don't handle it,
or whatever.

Reserved bits might become non-reserved in the future and so on.

>>>>> +         /* start the xHCI host driver */
>>>>> +         if (!skip) {
>>>> when would skip be true?
>>> only during system resume.
>> hmmm, is there a reason for that? I mean, could we live without it for
>> the time being? Seems like all this achieves is avoiding reenumeration
>> of some devices during resume. Do we care from a starting
>> implementation?
> At least on AM43x, it was required. without that USB devices plugged in
> before a system suspend were lost after resume.
> I agree on dropping this for now and adding it later.

looks like we have another problem which needs to be investigated ;-)

>>>>> +         dwc3_writel(dwc->regs, DWC3_GCTL, reg);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +         /* start the Peripheral driver  */
>>>>> +         if (dwc->gadget_driver) {
>>>>> +                 __dwc3_gadget_start(dwc);
>>>>> +                 if (dwc->gadget_pullup)
>>>>> +                         dwc3_gadget_run_stop(dwc, true, false);
>>>> why don't you add/remove the UDC just like you do for the HCD? (you
>>>> wouldn't add/remove a device, but rather call
>>>> usb_del_gadget_udc()/usb_add_gadget_udc() directly. Would that clean up
>>>> some of this?
>>> It causes more problems than solving anything.
>>> e.g. An already loaded gadget driver will have to be manually removed and 
>>> re-loaded to
>>> work after a peripheral to host to peripheral mode switch.
>> is that really still true? When we remove the UDC, the currently-loaded
>> gadget driver will be moved to the pending list. Once a UDC is added
>> back, udc-core will bind it again to the UDC.
> OK. I need to test this again. As you say, the issue might already have been 
> fixed.
> Good to know that.


>>>>> + irq_set_status_flags(dwc->otg_irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
>>>> why?
>>> I don't know how to fix this. I have to do this because dwc3_omap is doing 
>>> it
>>> on the shared IRQ line and the flags must match if we need to share it.
>> hmmm... Then why does dwc_omap IRQ have IRQ_NOAUTOEN and otg_irq doesn't?
> We're setting IRQ_NOAUTOEN for otg_irq above.
> But the problem is that other platforms might not have this set so it will 
> break there.

exactly :-)

> Need to think of a better way how to tackle this.


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

Reply via email to