Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 15 Jan 2021 08:32:51 +0800
From:   Peter Chen <hzpeterchen@gmail.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Daewoong Kim <daewoong00.kim@lge.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        allen.lkml@gmail.com, gustavoars@kernel.org,
        a.darwish@linutronix.de, romain.perier@gmail.com,
        dvyukov@google.com, andreyknvl@google.com, mathias.nyman@intel.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] usb: xhci: setup packets don't need DMA mapping
Message-ID: <20210115003251.GA3443@b29397-desktop>
References: <1610593147-12511-1-git-send-email-daewoong00.kim@lge.com>
 <20210114050402.GA18650@b29397-desktop>
 <20210114180021.GA1935@rowland.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210114180021.GA1935@rowland.harvard.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 21-01-14 13:00:21, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 01:04:02PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> > On 21-01-14 11:59:07, Daewoong Kim wrote:
> > > DMA mapping of urb->setup_packet is not necessary for xHCI host
> > > controllers. The xHCI specification says that Setup Stage TRB includes
> > > whole Setup Data; therefore, urb->setup_dma will not be used in the xhci
> > > HCD code.
> > > 
> > 
> > How about bypass map/unmap operation for xHCI control transfer directly?
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
> > index 91ab81c3fc79..0a0ab14b7638 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c
> > @@ -1374,7 +1374,8 @@ static int xhci_map_urb_for_dma(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb,
> >  
> >  	xhci = hcd_to_xhci(hcd);
> >  
> > -	if (xhci_urb_suitable_for_idt(urb))
> > +	if (xhci_urb_suitable_for_idt(urb) ||
> > +		(usb_endpoint_xfer_control(&urb->ep->desc)))
> >  		return 0;
> 
> Would this affect the map/unmap operations for the DATA packets in a 
> control transfer, along with the SETUP packet?
> 

Oh, you are right, Alan. We do need map/unmap operation for DATA
packet in control transfer.

-- 

Thanks,
Peter Chen