[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87lh9uf1fw.fsf@saruman.tx.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:34:11 -0600
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
John Youn <John.Youn@...opsys.com>
CC: Yunzhi Li <lyz@...k-chips.com>,
Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
<linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>,
<gregory.herrero@...el.com>, <yousaf.kaukab@...el.com>,
<dinguyen@...nsource.altera.com>, <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
<ming.lei@...onical.com>, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
<johnyoun@...opsys.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] usb: dwc2: host: Assume all devices are on one single_tt hub
Hi,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> writes:
> Until we have logic to determine which devices share the same TT let's
> add logic to assume that all devices on a given dwc2 controller are on
> one single_tt hub. This is better than the previous code that assumed
> that all devices were on one multi_tt hub, since single_tt hubs
> appear (in my experience) to be much more common and any schedule that
> would work on a single_tt hub will also work on a multi_tt hub. This
> will prevent more than 8 total low/full speed devices to be on the bus
> at one time, but that's a reasonable restriction until we've made things
> smarter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Assuming single_tt is new for v3; not terribly well tested (yet).
>
> Changes in v2: None
>
> drivers/usb/dwc2/core.h | 1 +
> drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd_queue.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc2/core.h b/drivers/usb/dwc2/core.h
> index 567ee2c9e69f..09aa2b5ae29e 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc2/core.h
> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc2/core.h
> @@ -782,6 +782,7 @@ struct dwc2_hsotg {
> u16 periodic_usecs;
> unsigned long periodic_bitmap[DIV_ROUND_UP(TOTAL_PERIODIC_USEC,
> BITS_PER_LONG)];
> + bool has_split[8];
why don't you use a u8 instead then just set each bit for each
"has_split" you need to take care of. This array is kinda ugly.
> @@ -386,6 +409,13 @@ static int dwc2_find_multi_uframe(struct dwc2_hsotg *hsotg, struct dwc2_qh *qh)
> bitmap_set(hsotg->periodic_bitmap, start, qh->usecs);
> qh->start_usecs = start;
>
> + if (qh->do_split) {
> + for (i = start / EARLY_FRAME_USEC;
> + i < DIV_ROUND_UP(start + utime - 1, EARLY_FRAME_USEC);
> + i++)
> + hsotg->has_split[i] = true;
hsotg->has_split |= BIT(i);
> @@ -546,6 +577,13 @@ static void dwc2_deschedule_periodic(struct dwc2_hsotg *hsotg,
> }
>
> bitmap_clear(hsotg->periodic_bitmap, start, utime);
> +
> + if (qh->do_split) {
> + for (i = start / EARLY_FRAME_USEC;
> + i < DIV_ROUND_UP(start + utime - 1, EARLY_FRAME_USEC);
> + i++)
> + hsotg->has_split[i] = false;
hsotg->has_split &= ~BIT(i);
--
balbi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (819 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists