[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1506091320160.1324-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:24:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
cc: Michael Trimarchi <michael@...rulasolutions.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <nsekhar@...com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix mem corruption on OUT transfers
of more than 512 bytes
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> > But with a bounce buffer that's only 512 bytes long, you can never send
> > an entire packet's worth of data. If the bounce buffer is 1024 bytes
>
> for control endpoint, 512 bytes should be sufficient to send entire packet right?
Yes, you're right. I had confused control endpoints with bulk
endpoints, where the maxpacket size is 1024. Sorry for the mistake.
> > then you can send the entire first packet. When that's done, you can
> > send the second packet. And so on. It wouldn't be quite as fast, but
> > for ep0 that shouldn't matter.
>
> right! this is a variant of what I tried to implement in chained TRB [1].
> $subject tries just to avoid memory corruption instead of actually trying to
> receive all the data.
Okay. If you take the $SUBJECT approach, I think it would be better
for an URB submission to fail than for the host controller to send only
part of the data.
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