From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
Cc: Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>, b-liu@ti.com, nsekhar@ti.com,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uvc-gadget: Fix Set Interface (alternate setting) response behaviour
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 14:29:16 +0200
Message-ID: <2858481.CenWEf7Gbi@avalon>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.9.6-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <87bmtd1hi3.fsf@linux.intel.com>
References: <1488539835-11851-1-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <3028836.5DEGZBmlnn@avalon> <87bmtd1hi3.fsf@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1972
Lines: 43

Hi Felipe,

On Tuesday 07 Mar 2017 12:57:40 Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Laurent Pinchart writes:
> > On Friday 03 Mar 2017 13:17:15 Roger Quadros wrote:
> >> On alternate setting change, webcam gadget sends us a UVC_EVENT_STREAMON
> >> or UVC_EVENT_STREAMOFF event. It expects delayed status response on
> >> STREAMON event only but doesn't expect us to send that response over USB.
> >> It sends the delayed response when we issue the VIDIOC_STREAMON ioctl.
> >> 
> >> So we must not send UVCIOC_SEND_RESPONSE ioctl in these cases that too
> >> with invalid response length.
> > 
> > The commit message only explains why we should not call
> > UVCIOC_SEND_RESPONSE in response to a STREAMON event, but not why we
> > shouldn't either in response to a STREAMOFF event. The patch is correct
> > changing both, but I propose wording the above two paragraphs as follows.
> > 
> > "uvc-gadget: Do not send Set Interface (alternate setting) response twice
> > 
> > On alternate setting change, the webcam gadget sends us a
> > UVC_EVENT_STREAMON or UVC_EVENT_STREAMOFF event. In the first case, the
> > driver will issue a delayed status response automatically when we call
> > the VIDIOC_STREAMON ioctl. In the second case, the driver sends the
> > status response immediately. We must thus not send the status response
> > manually with UVCIOC_SEND_RESPONSE in any of those cases."
> > 
> > If you're fine with that I'll change the message when applying, there's no
> > need to resend the patch.
> 
> I have this in my testing/fixes and was planning to send it to Greg this
> week. I can drop it from my queue, no problem, but then let me know as
> you would need my acked-by.

This is a userspace application patch. Feel free to send it to Greg, but I 
don't think he will know what to do with it :-) Were you maybe confusing this 
patch with the kernel fix that Roger sent a few days ago ? That one should be 
queued, please keep it in your tree.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart