From: Andreas Hartmann <andihartmann@freenet.de>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, stf_xl@wp.pl
Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>,
Bernhard <bernhard.gebetsberger@gmx.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb, xhci, rt2800usb: do not perform Soft Retry
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 14:17:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b0025964-490d-d8a0-f9af-f916d44e4f52@maya.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YAq9bt6q9dfk4F+F@kroah.com>
On 22.01.21 at 12:56 Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:43:42AM +0100, stf_xl@wp.pl wrote:
>> From: Stanislaw Gruszka <stf_xl@wp.pl>
>>
>> Since f8f80be501aa ("xhci: Use soft retry to recover faster from transaction
>> errors") on some systems rt2800usb devices are unable to operate. Looks
>> that due to firmware or hardware limitations of those devices, they
>> require full recovery from USB Transaction Errors.
>>
>> To avoid the problem add URB transfer flag, that restore pre f8f80be501aa
>> xhci behaviour when the flag is set. For now only add it only to rt2800usb
>> driver.
>
> This feels like a really heavy hammer, to add a xhci flag for a single
> broken device.
>
> Are you sure this is really needed? What does this device do on other
> operating systems, do they have such a quirk for their host controller
> driver?
>
> Or is this due to the specific host controller device hardware? Should
> this be a xhci quirk for a specific pci device instead?
Well, rt2800usb USB implementation does have a lot of potential for optimization
since the very beginning (current throughput comparison 2 MiB/s vs 13 MiB/s with
the original driver e.g.). That's why I'm using until today a self patched version
(it's bound to cfg80211 meanwhile) of the original driver (rt5572sta), which
doesn't have those problems at all. From my point of view, the goal should be to
solve the real reason for the problem. The original driver works much better
(leastwise here) and doesn't show this problem at all!
But anyway, there is from my point of view a basic problem with xhci_hcd, which
just seems not to be completely backward compatible to existing USB 2 drivers (see
https://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=161130327411612&w=2) if the device is plugged to
an USB 3.x interface.
Thanks
Andreas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-22 13:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-22 10:43 [PATCH] usb, xhci, rt2800usb: do not perform Soft Retry stf_xl
2021-01-22 11:56 ` Greg KH
2021-01-22 13:17 ` Andreas Hartmann [this message]
2021-01-22 15:22 ` Mathias Nyman
2021-01-22 17:16 ` Andreas Hartmann
2021-01-22 13:26 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2021-01-22 15:00 ` Mathias Nyman
2021-01-23 10:14 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2021-02-03 9:02 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b0025964-490d-d8a0-f9af-f916d44e4f52@maya.org \
--to=andihartmann@freenet.de \
--cc=bernhard.gebetsberger@gmx.at \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathias.nyman@intel.com \
--cc=stf_xl@wp.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.