[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1401081210140.1659-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:14:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
cc: Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>,
walt <w41ter@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3.12 033/118] usb: xhci: Link TRB must not occur within
a USB payload burst
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Alan Stern
> >
> > This may be a foolish question, but why is xhci-hcd using no-op TRBs in
> > the first place?
>
> Because it can't write in a link TRB because other parts of the
> code use link TRBs to detect the end of the ring.
>
> The problem is that it can't put a link TRB in the middle of
> a chain of data fragments unless it is at a 'suitable' offset
> from the start of the data TD. Given arbitrary input fragmentation
> this means that you can't put a link TRB in the middle of a TD.
> (The documented alignment might be as high as 16kB.)
>
> If the rest of the code used a 'ring end pointer' then a link TRB
> could be used instead.
I see. Sounds like a poor design decision in hindsight. Can it be
changed?
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists