[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200915094531.GA8046@lxhi-065.adit-jv.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:45:31 +0200
From: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<andrew_gabbasov@...tor.com>, Baxter Jim <jim_baxter@...tor.com>,
"Natsume, Wataru (ADITJ/SWG)" <wnatsume@...adit-jv.com>,
"Nishiguchi, Naohiro (ADITJ/SWG)" <nnishiguchi@...adit-jv.com>,
浅野恭史 <yasano@...adit-jv.com>,
kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
yasushi asano <yazzep@...il.com>,
Martin Mueller <Martin.Mueller5@...bosch.com>,
Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@...il.com>,
Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] USB: hub.c: decrease the number of attempts of
enumeration scheme
Dear Alan,
Dear Greg,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:12:28AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> The thing is, I'm afraid that without these retry loops, some devices
> will stop working. If that happens, we will not be able to keep this
> patch in place; we will just have to accept that we fail the PET test.
>
> Alan Stern
Does this mean that Linux community leaves no choice but to ship a
forked kernel (with no chance of alignment to upstream) for
organizations which design embedded devices where USB plays a key
role, hence requires passing the USB-IF Compliance Program [*]?
Is there hope to give users a knob (build-time or run-time) which would
enable the behavior expected and thoroughly described in compliance
docs, particularly chapter "6.7.22 A-UUT Device No Response for
connection timeout" of "USB On-The-Go and Embedded Host Automated
Compliance Plan" [**]?
[*] https://www.usb.org/compliance
[**] https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/otgeh_compliance_plan_1_2.pdf
--
Best regards,
Eugeniu Rosca
Powered by blists - more mailing lists