Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752727AbaDVH2q (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 03:28:46 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com ([209.85.215.42]:45398 "EHLO
	mail-la0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752329AbaDVH2n (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 03:28:43 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1404211228190.1201-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
References: <20140421160802.GA22794@saruman.home>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1404211228190.1201-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:58:41 +0530
Message-ID: <CALHRZur7+MaYXbWOfbvjggPN7_eYAE+th5VNbcLP=ehvm0HGsA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] usb: gadget: Add xilinx axi usb2 device support
From: sundeep subbaraya <sundeep.lkml@gmail.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>,
        Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta <subbaraya.sundeep.bhatta@xilinx.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Michal Simek <michals@xilinx.com>,
        "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta <sbhatta@xilinx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:34:08PM +0530, sundeep subbaraya wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > >> in ep_queue driver starts dma transfer from/to IP buffer to/from req->buf.
>> > >> If transfer is completed then request is not added to ep request queue
>> > >> and returns from ep_queue.
>> > >> If transfer is not completed (actual < length) then request is added
>> > >> to queue and returns from ep_queue.
>> > >
>> > > This is wrong. Why wouldn't you give gadget driver the chance to decide
>> > > if it needs to queue the request again or not ?
>> >
>> > When does gadget driver decides to queue the same request again?
>> > if -EBUSY is returned from ep_queue or req.status != 0 in completion
>> > routine?
>>
>> whenever it so decides. Different gadget drivers might have different
>> requirements. The code is open and sits under drivers/usb/gadget/ why
>> don't you have a read ?
>
> I get the impression that the two of you are arguing past each other.
> It appears that Sundeep is talking about transferring data from the
> gadget driver's buffer to an internal buffer in the UDC hardware, but
> Felipe is talking about transferring data from the UDC to the host.
>
> As I understand it, Sundeep said that when the gadget driver queues a
> data-IN request, the UDC driver copies as much of the data buffer as
> possible into a hardware FIFO.  If it succeeds in copying all the data
> into the FIFO then the request's completion routine gets called
> immediately, even though the data doesn't get sent from the FIFO to the
> host until the host asks for it.
>
> If only part of the data can be copied into the FIFO then the request
> is added to the ep's request queue before the usb_ep_queue() call
> returns.  When space becomes available in the FIFO, the data will be
> copied and eventually sent to the host.  When all the data has been
> copied to the FIFO, the request's completion routine will be called.
>
> Thus there never is any need for the gadget driver to queue the request
> again.  An incomplete transfer means the FIFO didn't have enough room
> when the request was submitted; it doesn't mean that the data didn't
> eventually get sent to the host.

Exactly Alan,this is what I was trying to say. Probably I was not
clear in explaining. I didnt see
any harm this way and even this implementation is same like
at91_udc.c. I have been reading
mas_storage to understand when does gadget driver tries to enqueue a
request again. Since
different gadget drivers might have different requirements (agree with
Felipe), wanted to
know criteria for queuing a same request again.

I will change this implementation as per Felipe comments and test with
some of the gadgets.

Thanks Alan and Felipe,
Sundeep

>
> HTH,
>
> Alan Stern
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/