[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02E7334B1630744CBDC55DA8586225837F8DDEE9@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 00:54:35 +0000
From: "Yang, Fei" <fei.yang@...el.com>
To: 'Felipe Balbi' <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
"'john.stultz@...aro.org'" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"'andrzej.p@...labora.com'" <andrzej.p@...labora.com>,
"'linux-usb@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'gregkh@...uxfoundation.org'" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"'stable@...r.kernel.org'" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2] usb: dwc3: gadget: trb_dequeue is not updated
properly
> > Can only be true for last TRB
> >
| if (event->status & DEPEVT_STATUS_IOC)
| return 1;
>
> This is the problem. The whole USB request gets only one interrupt when the last TRB completes, so dwc3_gadget_ep_reclaim_trb_sg()
> gets called with event->status = 0x6 which has DEPEVT_STATUS_IOC bit set. Thus dwc3_gadget_ep_reclaim_completed_trb() returns 1
> for the first TRB and the for-loop ends without having a chance to iterate through the sg list.
>
> > If we have a short packet, then we may fall here. Is that the case?
>
> No need for a short packet to make it fail. In my case below, a 16384 byte request got slipt into 4 TRBs of 4096 bytes. All TRBs were
> completed normally, but the for-loop in dwc3_gadget_ep_reclaim_trb_sg() was terminated right after handling the first TRB. After that
> the trb_dequeue is messed up.
>
> buffer_addr,size,type,ioc,isp_imi,csp,chn,lst,hwo
> 0000000077849000, 4096,normal,0,0,1,1,0,0
> 000000007784a000, 4096,normal,0,0,1,1,0,0
> 000000007784b000, 4096,normal,0,0,1,1,0,0
> 000000007784c000, 4096,normal,1,0,1,0,0,0
> 000000007784d000, 512,normal,1,0,1,0,0,0
>
> My first version of the patch was trying to address the issue in dwc3_gadget_ep_reclaim_completed_trb(), but then I thought it's a bad
> idea to touch this function because that is also called from non scatter_gather list case, and I was not sure if returning 1 for the linear
> case is correct or not.
I just sent v3 of the patch. Let me know your thoughts.
-Fei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists