From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Erkka Talvitie <erkka.talvitie@vincit.fi>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
<claus.baumgartner@med.ge.com>
Subject: RE: [RFCv1 1/1] USB: EHCI: Do not return -EPIPE when hub is disconnected
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:37:59 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1912050929350.14919-100000@netrider.rowland.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <021d01d5ab57$c2f1ab20$48d50160$@vincit.fi>
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Erkka Talvitie wrote:
> I tested this change and the issue did not reproduce.
>
> However when I was writing the comments for the patch I started to think
> what happens in this following scenario:
>
> The PID Code is IN.
>
> 1. First there will be XACT, the CERR is decremented, let's say from 3 to 2
> and the host controller executes a retry.
> 2. On this next try there will happen the condition mentioned in the Table
> 4-13 of the EHCI specification so that the MMF is set and the queue is
> halted (because it is IN).
> 3. To my understanding now the execution enters to this first stall check
> if, as CERR is > 0 and CERR < EHCI_TUNE_CERR.
> 4. The -EPIPE (stall) is returned when actually the queue was halted due to
> MMF - not stall - and the -EPROTO should be returned.
>
> Is my logic correct or am I missing something?
The same thought had occurred to me.
> If you agree with me then I would like to present you a bit more bold (in a
> sense of amount of refactoring) RFC. In high level this another RFC
> separates 1. error check and 2. stall check. For me this approach is a bit
> easier to understand from the code. Or then please propose another
> solution.
I was going to suggest: Just check for MMF and PID == IN before
checking for STALL. Everything else can remain the way it is.
Alan Stern
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-05 14:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-29 14:08 [RFCv1 1/1] USB: EHCI: Do not return -EPIPE when hub is disconnected Erkka Talvitie
2019-12-02 19:43 ` Alan Stern
2019-12-03 9:38 ` Erkka Talvitie
2019-12-03 10:54 ` Erkka Talvitie
2019-12-03 13:35 ` Erkka Talvitie
2019-12-03 19:01 ` Alan Stern
2019-12-04 8:55 ` Erkka Talvitie
2019-12-04 13:18 ` Erkka Talvitie
2019-12-04 14:24 ` Alan Stern
2019-12-04 14:37 ` Erkka Talvitie
2019-12-05 10:35 ` Erkka Talvitie
2019-12-05 14:37 ` Alan Stern [this message]
2019-12-05 15:00 ` Erkka Talvitie
2019-12-09 9:57 ` Erkka Talvitie
2019-12-09 15:24 ` Alan Stern
2019-12-10 6:31 ` Erkka Talvitie
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=Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1912050929350.14919-100000@netrider.rowland.org \
--to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=claus.baumgartner@med.ge.com \
--cc=erkka.talvitie@vincit.fi \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).