[PATCH v3 42/46] usb: gadget: move ep_matches() from epautoconf to udc-core

[Alan Stern]

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:

> Alan Stern <stern at rowland.harvard.edu> writes:
> 
> Hi Alan,
> 
> > On Sat, 25 Jul 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> >
> >> Petr Cvek <petr.cvek at tul.cz> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On 23.7.2015 21:46, Alan Stern wrote:
> >> >>> It seems that it allows using a BULK endpoint for requested INT
> >> >>> endpoint. For my PXA27x machine the original code returns BULK EP
> >> >>> even with valid INT endpoint definition (because BULK EPs are defined
> >> >>> earlier than INT EPs).
> >> >> 
> >> >> Yes, it does allow a bulk endpoint to be used when an interrupt 
> >> >> endpoint was requested.  However, it won't return a bulk endpoint if 
> >> >> all the bulk endpoints are already in use.
> >> This cannot work for pxa27x.
> >
> > Do you mean that on pxa27x, a bulk endpoint cannot be used as an
> > interrupt endpoint?  Why not?  From the device controller's point of
> > view, there is no difference between bulk and interrupt (except
> > possibly for the maxpacket sizes and high-bandwidth usage when running
> > at high speed).
> That's the point, maxpacket size and priority.
> 
> As you said, it's not that it won't work, it won't work with the priority
> expected by the software stack, ie. higher priority for ISO endpoint.

As Robert Baldyga pointed out, this isn't relevant to a UDC driver.  
Only to a host controller driver.

> >> The pxa27x IP has a hardware limitation which prevents an endpoint from changing
> >> its type once the UDC is enabled (see the comment at the beginning of
> >> pxa27x_udc.c).
> >> 
> >> If that patchset implies that for a requested INT endpoint a BULK endpoint can
> >> be returned, that won't work. Felipe and Robert, is that what this patchset
> >> implies ?
> >
> > Sort of.  The matching code has always behaved that way and this
> > patchset does not change the behavior.
> Then all is fine I suppose, if it was working before and nothing changes, it
> will continue to work, won't it ?

It should.

> >> > A default PXA27x configuration returns BULK for requested INT. Which is
> >> > unfortunate, because PXA27x supports INT endpoints and has one predefined, but
> >> > this function find BULK first (one BULK is allocated and INT is never used).
> >> See above.
> >
> > See response above.
> >
> > Besides, let's say the pxa27x has one bulk and one interrupt endpoint.  
> > Now suppose the gadget driver requests a bulk endpoint first.  The 
> > matching code will allocate the single bulk endpoint.  Then the gadget 
> > driver requests an interrupt endpoint.  The matching code cannot 
> > allocate the bulk endpoint, because that endpoint is already allocated.  
> > So it will allocate the interrupt endpoint.
> >
> > Thus, as you can see, under the right conditions everything will work 
> > as desired.
> 
> Let me give you another example :
>  - pxa27x_udc offers 3 endpoints : ep-in, ep-out, ep-iso-in
>  - a gadget driver does :
>    - request an ep-in
>    - request an ep-out
>    - request an ep-in
>    - request an ep-iso-in
> In that case, the ep-iso-in request will fail, right ? Yet I would have expected
> the second ep-in request to fail, as that's the one which cannot be serviced.

In this example, the second ep-in request _will_ fail.  An isochronous 
endpoint will not be allocated when the gadget driver requests a bulk 
endpoint.

The bahavior that Petr didn't like was quite different: The matching 
code will sometimes allocate a bulk endpoint when the gadget driver 
requests an interrupt endpoint.

> Of course, this hypothetical case implies that pxa27x_udc is not compatible with
> this gadget driver, so it's not really relevant, is it ...
> 
> >> > Because if they do, the ep_matches() function works poorly. It returns a BULK
> >> > for device (gadget) side, but host side (PC) thinks that this endpoint is an INT
> >> > and handles it in this way. But the PXA27x thinks the endpoint is a BULK and
> >> > handles it in its way (according to datasheet, settings for a BULK and an INT
> >> > transfers are not 100% compatible).
> >
> > How do they differ?
> One example I have in mind is chapter 12.4.2 of pxa27x developer manual
> "Endpoint Memory Configuration", quote follows :
>           If the USB host controller transmits more OUT data than the maximum
>           size packet for a bulk or interrupt endpoint, the UDC does not send
>           any handshake to the host controller causing the host controller to
>           time-out. If the USB host controller transmits more OUT data than the
>           maximum size packet for an isochronous endpoint, the UDC sets the data
>           packet error (DPE) bit in the Endpoint Control/Status register,
>           UDCCSRx[DPE].

That's a difference between isochronous and bulk/interrupt.  We are 
talking about the difference between bulk and interrupt.

Alan Stern