On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 04:48:58AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
+Tom for question below
Hi,
On 20 July 2017 at 03:40, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 07/20/2017 11:38 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
+Simon,
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 07/20/2017 09:49 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
2017-07-20 2:33 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut marex@denx.de:
On 07/19/2017 05:38 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > 2017-07-15 21:57 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut marex@denx.de: >> On 07/15/2017 01:30 AM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote: >>>> On 07/14/2017 11:46 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote: >>>>>> On 07/14/2017 01:03 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>>>> 2017-07-14 19:07 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut marex@denx.de: >>>>>>>> On 07/14/2017 04:31 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>>>>>> Prior to DM, we could not enable different types of USB controllers >>>>>>>>> at the same time. DM was supposed to loosen the limitation. It is >>>>>>>>> true that we can compile drivers, but they do not work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For example, if EHCI is enabled, xHCI fails as follows: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> => usb read 82000000 0 2000 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> USB read: device 0 block # 0, count 8192 ... WARN halted endpoint, queueing URB anyway. >>>>>>>>> Unexpected XHCI event TRB, skipping... (3fb54010 00000001 13000000 01008401) >>>>>>>>> BUG: failure at drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c:489/abort_td()! >>>>>>>>> BUG! >>>>>>>>> ### ERROR ### Please RESET the board ### >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The cause of the error seems the following code: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_USB_EHCI_HCD >>>>>>>>> /* >>>>>>>>> * The U-Boot EHCI driver can handle any transfer length as long as there is >>>>>>>>> * enough free heap space left, but the SCSI READ(10) and WRITE(10) commands are >>>>>>>>> * limited to 65535 blocks. >>>>>>>>> */ >>>>>>>>> #define USB_MAX_XFER_BLK 65535 >>>>>>>>> #else >>>>>>>>> #define USB_MAX_XFER_BLK 20 >>>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To fix the problem, choose the chunk size at run-time for CONFIG_BLK. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What happens if CONFIG_BLK is not set ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> USB_MAX_XFER_BLK is chosen. >>>>>> >>>>>> And can we fix that even for non-CONFIG_BLK ? >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why is it 20 for XHCI anyway ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are the maintainer. >>>>>>> (I hope) you have better knowledge with this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Heh, way to deflect the question. I seem to remember some discussion >>>>>> about the DMA (?) limitation on XHCI, but I'd have to dig through the ML >>>>>> archives myself. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks like the following commit was picked up by you. >>>>>> >>>>>> 5 years ago, way before DM was what it is today . >>>>> >>>>> And even way before the introduction of XHCI into U-Boot, which means >>>>> that this 20 was targeting OHCI or proprietary HCDs, not XHCI. >>>>> USB_MAX_READ_BLK was already set to 20 in the initial revision of >>>>> usb_storage.c. As I said in the commit message, this 20 was certainly >>>>> not optimal for these non-EHCI HCDs, but it restored the previous >>>>> (i.e. pre-5dd95cf) behavior for these HCDs instead of using the 5 * 4 >>>>> KiB code, which was specific to ehci-hcd.c at that time. Without >>>>> knowing the rationale for the legacy 20 blocks, the safest approach >>>>> for non-EHCI HCDs was to use this value in order to avoid breaking a >>>>> platform or something. Looking at ohci-hcd.c, it limits the transfer >>>>> size to (N_URB_TD - 2) * 4 KiB, with N_URB_TD set to 48, so the >>>>> maximum number of transfers would depend on the MSC block size. >>>>> dwc2.c, isp116x-hcd.c, r8a66597-hcd.c, and sl811-hcd.c do not seem to >>>>> have any limit caused by these drivers. The limit with the current >>>>> XHCI code seems to be 64 * 64 KiB. So, nowadays, USB_MAX_XFER_BLK >>>>> could be set to 65535 for all HCDs but OHCI and XHCI, which require >>>>> specific rules depending on the MSC block size. >>>> >>>> For whatever reason, something tells me that setting the block size to >>>> 64k for XHCI broke things, but I cannot locate the thread. But there's >>>> something in the back of my head ... >>> >>> Indeed: according to what I said above, USB_MAX_XFER_BLK cannot be set >>> to 65535 for XHCI. With an MSC block size of blksz = 512 bytes / >>> block, USB_MAX_XFER_BLK can be set to at most 1 segment * >>> (TRBS_PER_SEGMENT = 64 TRBs / segment) * (TRB_MAX_BUFF_SIZE = 65536 >>> bytes / TRB) / blksz = 8192 blocks for XHCI. And for OHCI, the limit >>> is (N_URB_TD - 2 = 46 TDs) * (4096 bytes / TD) / blksz = 368 blocks. >>> The buffer alignment may also have to be taken into account to adjust >>> these values, which would require a USB_MAX_XFER_BLK(host_if, start, >>> blksz) macro or function. USB_MAX_XFER_BLK can however be set to 65535 >>> regardless of blksz for all the other HCDs (i.e. EHCI, dwc2.c, >>> isp116x-hcd.c, r8a66597-hcd.c, and sl811-hcd.c). >> >> That's probably what I was looking for, thanks. >> > > > So, how shall we handle this? > > If somebody can fix this in a correct way, > I am happy to hand over this.
Any way to fix it for !CONFIG_BLK ?
common/usb_storage.c is sprinkled with ugly #ifdef CONFIG_BLK
IIUC, !CONFIG_BLK code will be removed after migration.
Is it worthwhile to save !CONFIG_BLK case?
Hmmmmmm, sigh. When is the migration happening, how far is it ?
One idea is to force all board to switch to driver model at a preset timeline. After the deadline, boards do not switch to DM will get dropped by the mainline. I noticed that not all boards are actively maintained...
Be my guest, there's a few which I'd like to see removed myself :-)
That makes sense although I'm not sure what the deadline should be. CONFIG_BLK is invasive and it is a pain to carry the #ifdefs.
Maybe end of year, or is that too short?
9 months, rounded up to next release?