RE: [PATCH net 2/3] net: cdc_mbim: send ZLP after max sized NTBs

2013-01-22 Thread Alexey ORISHKO
H Bjørn, -Original Message- From: Bjørn Mork [mailto:bj...@mork.no] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:54 AM If you add ZLP for NTBs of dwNtbOutMaxSize, you are heavily affecting CPU load, increasing interrupt load by factor of 2 in high load traffic scenario and possibly

RE: [PATCH net 2/3] net: cdc_mbim: send ZLP after max sized NTBs

2013-01-21 Thread Alexey ORISHKO
-Original Message- From: Bjørn Mork [mailto:bj...@mork.no] We normally avoid sending ZLPs by padding NTBs with a zero byte if the NTB is shorter than dwNtbOutMaxSize, resulting in a short USB packet instead of a ZLP. But in the case where the NTB length is exactly dwNtbOutMaxSize

RE: [PATCH net] net: cdc_ncm: workaround for missing CDC Union

2013-01-21 Thread Alexey ORISHKO
-Original Message- From: Oliver Neukum [mailto:oneu...@suse.de] On Monday 21 January 2013 15:47:13 Bjørn Mork wrote: But I wonder if this isn't really a generic problem in usbnet. The FLAG_MULTI_PACKET test here seems completely bogus: if (length % dev-maxpacket == 0) {

RE: [PATCH net 0/3] cdc_ncm and cdc_mbim fixes for 3.8

2013-01-21 Thread Alexey ORISHKO
-Original Message- From: David Miller [mailto:da...@davemloft.net] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:23 PM To: bj...@mork.no Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; gsua...@smithmicro.com; Alexey ORISHKO; oneu...@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/3] cdc_ncm

Re: [PATCH net 0/3] cdc_ncm and cdc_mbim fixes for 3.8

2013-01-21 Thread Alexey Orishko
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote: Alexey ORISHKO alexey.oris...@stericsson.com wrote: There are still a couple of questions I am wondering about though. The most important one: what is Windows 8 doing different from us? Does anyone know? I do not have

Re: [PATCH net] net: cdc_ncm: workaround for missing CDC Union

2013-01-19 Thread Alexey Orishko
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote: Some Sierra Wireless firmwares support CDC MBIM but have no CDC Union funtional descriptor. This violates the MBIM specification, I don't believe Sierra Wireless violates MBIM specification. See in the specification: there are

Re: net: usb: cdc_ncm: add support IFF_NOARP

2013-01-08 Thread Alexey Orishko
Hi, On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Wei Shuai cpuw...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Alexey, Recently I met a Modem which cannot do ARP. But I found our cdc_ncm_bind() function cannot handle this special case. Do you have any plan to handle it? static int cdc_ncm_bind(struct usbnet *dev,

Re: [PATCH net-next 02/14] net: cdc_ncm: use device rx_max value if update failed

2012-10-19 Thread Alexey Orishko
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote: Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes: Alexey Orishko alexey.oris...@gmail.com writes: OK, I did some more experiments, and I am wondering if the real firmware problem is in the MBIM descriptor. It is CDC MBIM

Re: [PATCH net-next 02/14] net: cdc_ncm: use device rx_max value if update failed

2012-10-19 Thread Alexey Orishko
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote: OK, I may have misunderstood you here. Quoting the errata text: quote If bit D5 is set in the bmNetworkCapabilities field of function’s NCM Functional Descriptor, the host may set wLength either to 4 or to 8. If wLength

Re: [PATCH net-next 02/14] net: cdc_ncm: use device rx_max value if update failed

2012-10-18 Thread Alexey Orishko
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote: Oliver Neukum oli...@neukum.org writes: On Thursday 18 October 2012 22:40:55 Bjørn Mork wrote: If the device refuses our updated value, then we must be prepared to receive URBs as big as the device wants to send. Set rx_max to

RE: removing the timer from cdc-ncm

2012-09-25 Thread Alexey ORISHKO
-Original Message- From: Oliver Neukum [mailto:oneu...@suse.de] here is the patch that does everything I consider theoretically necessary to have bundling of frames in usbnet and adapting cdc-ncm to it. I'd appreciate any review in case I am doing something stupid. I had a

RE: removing the timer from cdc-ncm

2012-09-24 Thread Alexey ORISHKO
-Original Message- From: Oliver Neukum [mailto:oneu...@suse.de] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:35 AM To: Alexey ORISHKO; bj...@mork.no; net...@vger.kernel.org; linux- u...@vger.kernel.org Subject: removing the timer from cdc-ncm Hi, here is the patch that does everything I

RE: changing usbnet's API to better deal with cdc-ncm

2012-09-10 Thread Alexey ORISHKO
-Original Message- From: Oliver Neukum [mailto:oli...@neukum.org] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 8:23 PM There is a temptation to send full NTBs even with a single IP packet, But it will lead to wasted USB bandwidth and reduced ability to send real data for other functions in

RE: changing usbnet's API to better deal with cdc-ncm

2012-09-07 Thread Alexey ORISHKO
-Original Message- From: Ming Lei [mailto:tom.leim...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:58 PM Several issues need to be improved: Tx path: 1. IP packets must be accumulated in one NTB. Currently it's done via data copy. Preferred way would be a possibility to have

RE: changing usbnet's API to better deal with cdc-ncm

2012-09-07 Thread Alexey ORISHKO
-Original Message- From: Oliver Neukum [mailto:oneu...@suse.de] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 3:09 PM Until we do something with network device framework in order to get access to upper layer Tx queue we need to utilize timer. Could you explain your reasoning? From what you

RE: changing usbnet's API to better deal with cdc-ncm

2012-09-06 Thread Alexey ORISHKO
-Original Message- From: Oliver Neukum [mailto:oneu...@suse.de] looking at cdc-ncm it seeems to me that cdc-ncm is forced to play very dirty games because usbnet doesn't have a notion about aggregating packets for a single transfer. Several issues need to be improved: Tx path: 1.

Re: [PATCH] usb: cdc-ncm: struct usb_cdc_ncm_ndp_input_size not initialized

2012-09-06 Thread Alexey Orishko
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Hoffmann frank.hoffm...@thesycon.de wrote: I'm not sure if it is also required to initialize the wNtbInMaxDatagrams field because 0 (no limit) is a valid value. It is not required. The limit was removed in one of the patches earlier. /alexey -- To

Re: [RFC] USB: cdc-wdm: Extend and improve subdriver interface

2012-09-04 Thread Alexey Orishko
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote: Yes. But this time with some hope of multi-vendor support, given that Microsoft points to it for Windows 8 Mobile Broadband device support: