[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADYTM3bO5FecJCMMv4iYzugF4DFNmGKs5gtFODLWqnq1u_BDHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 15:42:51 -0500
From: Bin Liu <binmlist@...il.com>
To: George Cherian <george.cherian@...com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
balbi@...com, zonque@...il.com, b-liu@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] usb: musb: core: Handle Babble condition only in
HOST mode
Hi George,
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:32 PM, George Cherian <george.cherian@...com> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On 5/19/2014 9:24 PM, Bin Liu wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:39 AM, George Cherian <george.cherian@...com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> BABBLE and RESET share the same interrupt. The interrupt
>>> is considered to be RESET if MUSB is in peripheral mode and
>>> as a BABBLE if MUSB is in HOST mode.
>>>
>>> Handle babble condition iff MUSB is in HOST mode.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: George Cherian <george.cherian@...com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c
>>> index 61da471..eff3c5c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c
>>> @@ -849,7 +849,7 @@ b_host:
>>> }
>>>
>>> /* handle babble condition */
>>> - if (int_usb & MUSB_INTR_BABBLE)
>>> + if (int_usb & MUSB_INTR_BABBLE && is_host_active(musb))
>>> schedule_work(&musb->recover_work);
>>
>> I guess my following comments are for Daniel's patch as while which
>> initially added the babble work.
>>
>> Should this if statement be merged into the previous 'if(int_usb &
>> MUSB_INTR_RESET)' one, which handles the same interrupt and already
>> handles host and device mode respectively.
>
>
> Initially I too had the babble handling as part of 'if(int_usb &
> MUSB_INTR_RESET)'
> one. But during my tests I hit a corner case where in we hit a BABBLE
> condition
> on disconnect. In such case the babble interrupt can be handled only if we
> have a seperate
> check, else its considered as a BUS RESET.
>
> When all devices are disconnected MUSB_DEVCTL_HM = 0 and the code always
> enter the
> else path. In this path it treats the BABBLE as a BUS RESET.
The code flow is a bit confusing, two if() handle the same interrupt.
The second one implied using 'handled = IRQ_HANDLED;' from the first
one.
Also does the switch() in else{} in the first if() cause any side effect?
Since this babble handing is AM335x specific, how about handle it in
dsps_interrupt() in musb_dsps.c, which already has an entry for babble
interrupt? TI 3.2 kernel does this way.
Regards,
-Bin.
>
>
>> Regards,
>> -Bin.
>>
>>> #if 0
>>> --
>>> 1.8.3.1
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>
> --
> -George
>
--
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