[PATCH v2 1/2] usb: dwc2: host: Fix missing device insertions
dianders at chromium.org
Mon Nov 16 15:14:33 PST 2015
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Alan Stern <stern at rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Alan Stern <stern at rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> >> ---
>> >> usb: dwc2: host: Fix missing device insertions
>> >> If you've got your interrupt signals bouncing a bit as you insert your
>> >> USB device, you might end up in a state when the device is connected but
>> >> the driver doesn't know it.
>> >> Specifically, the observed order is:
>> >> 1. hardware sees connect
>> >> 2. hardware sees disconnect
>> >> 3. hardware sees connect
>> >> 4. dwc2_port_intr() - clears connect interrupt
>> >> 5. dwc2_handle_common_intr() - calls dwc2_hcd_disconnect()
>> >> Now you'll be stuck with the cable plugged in and no further interrupts
>> >> coming in but the driver will think we're disconnected.
>> >> We'll fix this by checking for the missing connect interrupt and
>> >> re-connecting after the disconnect is posted. We don't skip the
>> >> disconnect because if there is a transitory disconnect we really want to
>> >> de-enumerate and re-enumerate.
>> > Why do you need to do anything special here? Normally a driver's
>> > interrupt handler should query the hardware status after clearing the
>> > interrupt source. That way no transitions ever get missed.
>> > In your example, at step 5 the dwc2 driver would check the port status
>> > and see that it currently is connected. Therefore the driver would
>> > pass a "connect status changed" event to the USB core and set the port
>> > status to "connected". No extra checking is needed, and transitory
>> > connects or disconnects get handled correctly.
>> Things are pretty ugly at the moment because the dwc2 interrupt
>> handler is split in two. There's dwc2_handle_hcd_intr() and
>> dwc2_handle_common_intr(). Both are registered for the same "shared"
>> IRQ. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is probably because someone
>> wanted to assign the ".irq" field in the "struct hc_driver" for the
>> host controller but that they also needed the other interrupt handler
>> to handle things shared between host and gadget mode.
>> In any case, one of these two interrupt routines handles connect and
>> the other disconnect. That's pretty ugly but means that you can't
>> just rely on standard techniques for keeping things in sync.
> Okay, that is rather weird. Still, I don't see why it should matter.
> Fundamentally there's no difference between a "connect" interrupt and a
> "disconnect" interrupt. They should both do exactly the same things:
> clear the interrupt source, post a "connection change" event, and set
> the driver's connect status based on the hardware's current state.
> The second and third parts can be handled by a shared subroutine.
Ah, sorry I misunderstood. OK, fair enough. So you're saying that
the problem is that dwc2_hcd_disconnect() has a line that looks like
hsotg->flags.b.port_connect_status = 0;
...and the dwc2_port_intr() has a line that looks like this:
hsotg->flags.b.port_connect_status = 1;
...and both should just query the status.
Do you think we should to block landing this patch on cleaning up how
dwc2 handles port_connect_status? I'm not sure what side effects
changing port_connect_status will have, so I'll need to test and dig a
I'm currently working on trying to fix the microframe scheduler and
was planning to post the next series of patches there pretty soon.
I'm also planning to keep digging to figure out how to overall
increase compatibility with devices (and compatibility with many
devices plugged in).
If it were up to me, I'd prefer to land this patch in either 4.4 or
4.5 since it does seem to work. ...then put seeing what we can do to
cleanup all of the port_connect_status on the todo list.
Julius points out in his response that there are comments saying that
HPRT0 can't be read in device mode. John: since you're setup to test
device mode, can you check if my patch (which now adds a read of
HPRT0) will cause problems? Maybe holding this off and keeping it out
of the RC is a good idea after all...
More information about the Linux-rockchip