Re: [PATCH next v2 3/6] usb: xhci-mtk: update fs bus bandwidth by bw_budget_table

From: Ikjoon Jang <ikjn@chromium.org>
To: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com>
Cc: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	"open list:USB XHCI DRIVER" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Eddie Hung <eddie.hung@mediatek.com>,
	Yaqii wu <yaqii.wu@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 3/6] usb: xhci-mtk: update fs bus bandwidth by bw_budget_table
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 19:54:04 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAATdQgBD+dTtBie-cNKRJbfxEpc3haqjfUu1k26mTk8pCSOEww@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210826025144.51992-3-chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com>

Hi Chunfeng,

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com> wrote:
>
> Use @bw_budget_table[] to update fs bus bandwidth due to
> not all microframes consume @bw_cost_per_microframe, see
> setup_sch_info().
>
> Signed-off-by: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@mediatek.com>
> ---
> v2: new patch, move from another series
> ---
>  drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c | 17 +++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c
> index cffcaf4dfa9f..83abd28269ca 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mtk-sch.c
> @@ -458,8 +458,8 @@ static int check_fs_bus_bw(struct mu3h_sch_ep_info *sch_ep, int offset)
>                  * Compared with hs bus, no matter what ep type,
>                  * the hub will always delay one uframe to send data
>                  */
> -               for (j = 0; j < sch_ep->cs_count; j++) {
> -                       tmp = tt->fs_bus_bw[base + j] + sch_ep->bw_cost_per_microframe;
> +               for (j = 0; j < sch_ep->num_budget_microframes; j++) {
> +                       tmp = tt->fs_bus_bw[base + j] + sch_ep->bw_budget_table[j];

I'm worrying about this case with two endpoints,
* EP1OUT: isochronous, maxpacket=192: bw_budget_table[] = { 188, 188, 0, ... }
* EP2IN: interrupt, maxpacket=64: bw_budget_table[] = { 0, 0, 64, 64, ... }
(Is this correct bw_budget_table contents for those eps?)

I'm not sure if it's okay for those two endpoints to be allocated
on the same u-frame slot.
Can you please check if this is okay for xhci-mtk?
(I feel like I already asked the same questions many times.)

>                         if (tmp > FS_PAYLOAD_MAX)
>                                 return -ESCH_BW_OVERFLOW;
>                 }
> @@ -534,21 +534,18 @@ static void update_sch_tt(struct mu3h_sch_ep_info *sch_ep, bool used)
>  {
>         struct mu3h_sch_tt *tt = sch_ep->sch_tt;
>         u32 base, num_esit;
> -       int bw_updated;
>         int i, j;
>
>         num_esit = XHCI_MTK_MAX_ESIT / sch_ep->esit;
>
> -       if (used)
> -               bw_updated = sch_ep->bw_cost_per_microframe;
> -       else
> -               bw_updated = -sch_ep->bw_cost_per_microframe;
> -
>         for (i = 0; i < num_esit; i++) {
>                 base = sch_ep->offset + i * sch_ep->esit;
>
> -               for (j = 0; j < sch_ep->cs_count; j++)
> -                       tt->fs_bus_bw[base + j] += bw_updated;
> +               for (j = 0; j < sch_ep->num_budget_microframes; j++)
> +                       if (used)
> +                               tt->fs_bus_bw[base + j] += sch_ep->bw_budget_table[j];
> +                       else
> +                               tt->fs_bus_bw[base + j] -= sch_ep->bw_budget_table[j];
>         }
>
>         if (used)
> --
> 2.18.0
>