Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] usb: gadget: add mechanism to specify an explicit status stage

[Alan Stern]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Paul Elder wrote:

> > > > Can you check your uvc
> > > > changes using dummy_hcd with the patch below?
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what to make of the test results. I get the same results
> > > with or without the patch. Which I guess makes sense... in dummy_queue,
> > > this is getting hit when the uvc function driver tries to complete the
> > > delayed status:
> > > 
> > > 	req = usb_request_to_dummy_request(_req);
> > > 	if (!_req || !list_empty(&req->queue) || !_req->complete)
> > > 		return -EINVAL;
> > > 
> > > So the delayed/explicit status stage is never completed, afaict.
> > 
> > I presume you are hitting the !list_empty(&req->queue) test, yes?  The 
> > other two tests are trivial.
> 
> Yes, that is what's happening.
> 
> > Triggering the !list_empty() test means the request has already been
> > submitted and not yet completed.  This probably indicates there is a
> > bug in the uvc function driver code.
> 
> The uvc function driver works with musb, though :/
> 
> I compared the sequence of calls to the uvc setup, completion handler,
> and status stage sending, and for some reason dummy_hcd, after an OUT
> setup-completion-status sequence, calls a completion-status-completion
> sequence, and then goes on the the next request. musb simply goes on to
> the next request after the setup-completion-status sequence.

I don't quite understand.  There's a control-OUT transfer, the setup, 
data, and status transactions all complete normally, and then what 
happens?  What do you mean by "a completion-status-completion 
sequence"?  A more detailed description would help.

> I commented out the paranoia block in dummy_timer, and dummy_hcd still
> does the extra completion, but it doesn't error out anymore. I doubt
> that's the/a solution though, especially since I get:
> 
> [   22.616577] uvcvideo: Failed to query (129) UVC probe control : -75 (exp. 26).
> [   22.624481] uvcvideo: Failed to initialize the device (-5).
> 
> Not sure if that's a result of dummy_hcd not supporting isochronous
> transfers or not.
> 
> I'm not sure where to continue investigating :/

Perhaps removing the "#if 0" protecting the dev_dbg line in 
dummy_queue() would provide some helpful output.

Another thing to check would be if the "implement an emulated 
single-request FIFO" in dummy_queue() is causing trouble.  There's no 
harm in replacing the long "if" condition with "if (0)".

Alan Stern