[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f03ccb09-4b5e-4db7-2cf0-375d53234099@microchip.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 06:40:25 +0000
From: <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>
To: <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC: <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com>,
<Cristian.Birsan@...rochip.com>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: host: ohci-at91: suspend/resume ports after/before
OHCI accesses
On 23.06.2021 19:41, Alan Stern wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:33:14PM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
>> On 23.06.2021 17:19, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:09:16PM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
>>>> On 23.06.2021 16:59, Alan Stern wrote:
>>>>> One thing you might consider changing: The name of the
>>>>> ohci_at91_port_suspend routine is misleading. It doesn't really
>>>>> handle suspending the port; instead it handles the clocks that drive
>>>>> the entire OHCI controller. Right?
>>>>
>>>> It does both as far as I can tell at the moment.
>>>
>>> But the name suggests that it only handles suspending a port. That's
>>> misleading.
>>>
>>> And the way it is used in the SetPortFeature(USB_PORT_FEAT_SUSPEND)
>>> case in ohci_at91_hub_control is just plain wrong. It won't merely
>>> suspend a single port; it will disable the entire OHCI controller.
>>
>> Agree with all the above!
>
> Are there any systems beside the SAMA7G5 and others you tested which
> might be affected by this patch? Do they all work pretty much the
> same way? (I want to make sure no others will be adversely affected
> by this change.)
I tested it on SAMA7G5, SAMA5D2 and SAM9X60. I tested the suspend/resume
to/from mem. On SAMA5D2 and SAM9X60 there is no clock provided by
transceiver A to OHCI. I encountered no issues on tested systems. These IPs
are also present on SAMA5D3 and SAMA5D4 systems which I haven't tested as I
expect to behave as SAMA5D2 (as the clocking scheme is the same with
SAMA5D2). I can also try it on a SAMA5D3 (I don't have a SAMA5D4 with me at
the moment), tough, just to be sure nothing is broken there too.
Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea
>
> Alan Stern
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists