From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>
To: Jun Li <lijun.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
Linux USB List <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eddie Hung <eddie.hung@mediatek.com>,
Yun-Chien Yu <yun-chien.yu@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: xhci: skip re-check pending port event if hibernated
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:05:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e7a6e45e-68ce-54a5-9632-80244dd1e4c7@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKgpwJXxtLwOjxjg3vFHiqS92j6rx_b1+C-bRwDnp+PBvXCMTg@mail.gmail.com>
On 14.12.2021 10.00, Jun Li wrote:
> Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com> 于2021年12月11日周六 01:56写道:
>>
>> On 9.12.2021 9.22, Chunfeng Yun wrote:
>>> When xHCI controller hibernated, the root hub lost power, if controller
>>> support Port Power Control (PPC), PP is not set at xhci_resume() and
>>> set by hub_reset_resume() later, so no need check pending port event.
>>> If PPC is not supported, device is disconneced, seems do not send out
>>> U3 LFPS wake signal, no need re-check again and drop 120ms delay to
>>> save resume time.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Yun-Chien Yu <yun-chien.yu@mediatek.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Thanks, adding
>
> Hi Mathias, Chunfeng
>
> I have a question on this, if there is no any usb devices connected
> before suspend, do we need this 120ms delay to check again?
> So do we need one more condition to limit this like?
> if (!pending_portevent && !hibernated && xhci_has_child_device())
The 120ms delay was added to make sure we catch the second wake signal
from a device in case host missed the first U3 exit LFPS wakeup signal.
Even if no devices are connected this might be helpful if a device is
connected while host is suspended.
I haven't checked any timing for the link training during enumeration,
but it also uses LFPS signalling, and connected device isn't visible to
driver until link is successfully trained.
So the original 120ms delay patch might as a positive side effect ensure
driver doesn't suspend host mid device enumeration.
Could be looked into more, but I don't think we should this patch by
Chunfeng
Thanks
Mathias
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>
To: Jun Li <lijun.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
Linux USB List <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eddie Hung <eddie.hung@mediatek.com>,
Yun-Chien Yu <yun-chien.yu@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: xhci: skip re-check pending port event if hibernated
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:05:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e7a6e45e-68ce-54a5-9632-80244dd1e4c7@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKgpwJXxtLwOjxjg3vFHiqS92j6rx_b1+C-bRwDnp+PBvXCMTg@mail.gmail.com>
On 14.12.2021 10.00, Jun Li wrote:
> Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com> 于2021年12月11日周六 01:56写道:
>>
>> On 9.12.2021 9.22, Chunfeng Yun wrote:
>>> When xHCI controller hibernated, the root hub lost power, if controller
>>> support Port Power Control (PPC), PP is not set at xhci_resume() and
>>> set by hub_reset_resume() later, so no need check pending port event.
>>> If PPC is not supported, device is disconneced, seems do not send out
>>> U3 LFPS wake signal, no need re-check again and drop 120ms delay to
>>> save resume time.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Yun-Chien Yu <yun-chien.yu@mediatek.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Thanks, adding
>
> Hi Mathias, Chunfeng
>
> I have a question on this, if there is no any usb devices connected
> before suspend, do we need this 120ms delay to check again?
> So do we need one more condition to limit this like?
> if (!pending_portevent && !hibernated && xhci_has_child_device())
The 120ms delay was added to make sure we catch the second wake signal
from a device in case host missed the first U3 exit LFPS wakeup signal.
Even if no devices are connected this might be helpful if a device is
connected while host is suspended.
I haven't checked any timing for the link training during enumeration,
but it also uses LFPS signalling, and connected device isn't visible to
driver until link is successfully trained.
So the original 120ms delay patch might as a positive side effect ensure
driver doesn't suspend host mid device enumeration.
Could be looked into more, but I don't think we should this patch by
Chunfeng
Thanks
Mathias
_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>
To: Jun Li <lijun.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
Linux USB List <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eddie Hung <eddie.hung@mediatek.com>,
Yun-Chien Yu <yun-chien.yu@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: xhci: skip re-check pending port event if hibernated
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:05:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e7a6e45e-68ce-54a5-9632-80244dd1e4c7@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKgpwJXxtLwOjxjg3vFHiqS92j6rx_b1+C-bRwDnp+PBvXCMTg@mail.gmail.com>
On 14.12.2021 10.00, Jun Li wrote:
> Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com> 于2021年12月11日周六 01:56写道:
>>
>> On 9.12.2021 9.22, Chunfeng Yun wrote:
>>> When xHCI controller hibernated, the root hub lost power, if controller
>>> support Port Power Control (PPC), PP is not set at xhci_resume() and
>>> set by hub_reset_resume() later, so no need check pending port event.
>>> If PPC is not supported, device is disconneced, seems do not send out
>>> U3 LFPS wake signal, no need re-check again and drop 120ms delay to
>>> save resume time.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Yun-Chien Yu <yun-chien.yu@mediatek.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Thanks, adding
>
> Hi Mathias, Chunfeng
>
> I have a question on this, if there is no any usb devices connected
> before suspend, do we need this 120ms delay to check again?
> So do we need one more condition to limit this like?
> if (!pending_portevent && !hibernated && xhci_has_child_device())
The 120ms delay was added to make sure we catch the second wake signal
from a device in case host missed the first U3 exit LFPS wakeup signal.
Even if no devices are connected this might be helpful if a device is
connected while host is suspended.
I haven't checked any timing for the link training during enumeration,
but it also uses LFPS signalling, and connected device isn't visible to
driver until link is successfully trained.
So the original 120ms delay patch might as a positive side effect ensure
driver doesn't suspend host mid device enumeration.
Could be looked into more, but I don't think we should this patch by
Chunfeng
Thanks
Mathias
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-14 10:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-09 7:22 [PATCH] usb: xhci: skip re-check pending port event if hibernated Chunfeng Yun
2021-12-09 7:22 ` Chunfeng Yun
2021-12-09 7:22 ` Chunfeng Yun
2021-12-10 13:33 ` Mathias Nyman
2021-12-10 13:33 ` Mathias Nyman
2021-12-10 13:33 ` Mathias Nyman
2021-12-14 8:00 ` Jun Li
2021-12-14 8:00 ` Jun Li
2021-12-14 8:00 ` Jun Li
2021-12-14 10:05 ` Mathias Nyman [this message]
2021-12-14 10:05 ` Mathias Nyman
2021-12-14 10:05 ` Mathias Nyman
2021-12-15 2:09 ` Jun Li
2021-12-15 2:09 ` Jun Li
2021-12-15 2:09 ` Jun Li
2021-12-17 9:40 ` Chunfeng Yun
2021-12-17 9:40 ` Chunfeng Yun
2021-12-17 9:40 ` Chunfeng Yun
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=e7a6e45e-68ce-54a5-9632-80244dd1e4c7@linux.intel.com \
--to=mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com \
--cc=eddie.hung@mediatek.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lijun.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathias.nyman@intel.com \
--cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
--cc=yun-chien.yu@mediatek.com \
/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.