Hi Felipe,
Hi,
Lukasz Majewski lukma@denx.de writes:
Lukasz Majewski lukma@denx.de writes:
Lukasz Majewski lukma@denx.de writes:
> > >> drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c | 2 +- > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c > > >> b/drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c index > > >> 8e7c981657..64cdfa7c98 100644 --- > > >> a/drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c +++ > > >> b/drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ > > >> static void dnload_request_complete(struct usb_ep *ep, > > >> struct usb_request *req) int ret; > > >> > > >> ret = dfu_write(dfu_get_entity(f_dfu->altsetting), > > >> req->buf, > > >> - req->length, f_dfu->blk_seq_num); > > >> + req->actual, f_dfu->blk_seq_num); > > > > DFU driver queues a request to USB controller. Per the > > gadget API req->length contains maximum amount of data to > > be transmitted. req->actual is written by USB controller > > with the actual amount of data that we transmitted. > > > > In the case of IN (TX), upon completion req->length and > > req->actual should always be equal (unless errors show up, > > etc) > > > > In the case of OUT (RX), upon completion req->actual MAY > > BE less than req->length and that's not an error. Say host > > sent us a short packet which causes early termination of > > transfer. > > > > With that in mind, let's consider the situation where > > we're receiving data from host using DFU. Let's assume > > that we have a 4096 byte buffer for transfers and we're > > receiving a binary that's 7679 bytes in size. > > > > Here's what we will do (pseudo-code): > > > > int remaining = 7679; > > char buf[4096]; > > > > while (remaining) { > > req->length = 4096; > > req->buf = buf; > > usb_ep_queue(req); > > > > /* wait for completion */ > > > > remaining -= req->actual; > > > > dfu_write(buf, req->length); /* this is the error */ > > } > > > > Can you see here that in the last packet we will write > > 4096 bytes when we should write only 3583? > > > > In principle you are right. I need to check if this change > > will not introduce regressions. > > > > Can you share your use case? > > Intel Edison running v2017.03-rc1 + patches (see [1]), > flashing u-boot.bin over DFU (see [2] for details). Without > $subject, image has to be aligned to 4096 bytes as below: > > $ dd if=u-boot.bin of=u-boot-4k.bin bs=4k seek=1 && truncate > -s %4096 u-boot-4k.bin > > With $subject, I don't need truncate. We still need the 4096 > byte of zeroes in the beginning of the image for other > reasons (which I really don't know why at this point). > > [1] https://github.com/andy-shev/u-boot/tree/edison > [2] https://communities.intel.com/message/435516#435516 >
Ok. I will check this. Thanks for pointing out :-)
Any updates here? I'd like to send Tangier Soc and Intel Edison Board support but I kinda depend on this patch making upstream. I can resend as part of the "add intel edison" series.
Let me know
I'm setting up /test/py/dfu now on BBB. I will let you know by EOD.
Here's what I used for testing:
I do appreciate that you tested it - even better, that with different approach.
However, some time ago Stephen Warren has rewritten tests for DFU, UMS to use some python infrastructure. Those tests (especially DFU, test corner cases - ZLP, +/-1B to packet size, etc).
that's exactly what I tested :-)
If you want, you can add your board to them.
I'll see how to do that and maybe add to the TODO list
Acked-by: Lukasz Majewski lukma@denx.de
Tested-by: Lukasz Majewski lukma@denx.de
Test HW: BBB (am335x) - with tests/py/dfu
I've added your patch to u-boot-dfu tree. I will send PR tomorrow.
You may also want to look into patches from Patrick Delaunay (those also will be added to PR):
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/704131/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/706492/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/706493/
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de