[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLVhA1jmdOdEh6w=dDD57y-89xScUQ4cOzKNcYQf6Mw0vA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:36:24 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: John Youn <johnyoun@...opsys.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sevak Arakelyan <sevaka@...opsys.com>,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: bug? dwc2: insufficient fifo memory
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:46 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
> Hey John,
> So after the USB tree landed in 4.11-rc, I've been seeing the
> following warning at bootup.
>
> It seems the fifo_mem/total_fifo_size value on hikey is 1920, but I'm
> seeing the addresses zip upward quickly as the txfsz values are all
> 2048. Not exactly sure whats wrong here. Things still seem to work
> properly.
>
> thanks
> -john
>
>
> [ 8.944987] dwc2 f72c0000.usb: bound driver configfs-gadget
> [ 8.956651] insufficient fifo memory
> [ 8.956703] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 8.964906] WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 1 at drivers/usb/dwc2/gadget.c:330
> dwc2_hsotg_init_fifo+0x1a8/0x1c8
Hey John,
So I finally got a bit of time to look deeper into this, and it
seems like this issue was introduced by commit 3c6aea7344c3 ("usb:
dwc2: gadget: Add checking for g-tx-fifo-size parameter"), as that
change added the following snippit:
if (hsotg->params.g_tx_fifo_size[fifo] < min ||
hsotg->params.g_tx_fifo_size[fifo] > dptxfszn) {
dev_warn(hsotg->dev, "%s: Invalid parameter
g_tx_fifo_size[%d]=%d\n",
__func__, fifo,
hsotg->params.g_tx_fifo_size[fifo]);
hsotg->params.g_tx_fifo_size[fifo] = dptxfszn;
}
On HiKey, we have g-tx-fifo-size = <128 128 128 128 128 128> in the
dtsi, and the fifo_mem value ends up initialized at 1920.
Unfortunately, in the above, it sees other entries in the
g_tx_fifo_size[] array are initialized to zero, which then causes them
to be set to the "default" value of dptxfszn which is 2048. So then
later in dwc2_hsotg_init_fifo() the addr value (which adds the
fifo_size array value each step) quickly grows beyond the fifo_mem
value, causing the warning.
Not sure what the right fix is here? Should the min value be used
instead of the "default" dptxfszn value? Again, I'm not sure I see
any side-effects from this warning, but wanted to try to figure out
how to fix it properly.
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists