[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5499C4E2.8090407@ridgerun.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:39:14 -0600
From: Carsten Behling <carsten.behling@...gerun.com>
To: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
CC: balbi@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: usb: musb: Scheduling of interrupt endpoints
The following comment can be found in 'musb_schedule()':
'* REVISIT what we really want here is a regular schedule tree
* like e.g. OHCI uses.'
So I assume the best practice would be to make an implementation based
on the code in in ohci-q.c. And it would be waste of time to port the old
interrupt endpoint scheduling feature of TI.
Am I right?
On 12/23/2014 08:59 AM, Carsten Behling wrote:
> Would it help if I send a patch as a suggestion and as basis for
> discussion?
>
> On 12/19/2014 01:38 PM, Carsten Behling wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Long time ago, TI shipped a kernel named
>> linux-2.6.32.17-psp03.01.01.39 with an additional kernel option
>> for scheduling of interrupt endpoints.
>>
>> AFAIK, this seems to be the only possibility to attach more that 4 in
>> endpoints to MUSB (at least on a DM368).
>>
>> This feature reserves one hardware endpoint unit to time schedule
>> interrupt in endpoints based
>> on its bInterval value triggered by the SOF interrupt.
>>
>> I didn't find any discussion about adding such a feature to the
>> mainline kernel.
>> IMHO, this feature is absolutely necessary. But there may be reasons,
>> not to add it (e.g. CPU load).
>>
>> Please let me know your thoughts and ideas.
>>
>> Best regards
>> -Carsten
>>
>
--
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