RE: [PATCH v7 01/10] usb: gadget: udc: Add timer support for usb requests

[Alan Stern]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Anurag Kumar Vulisha wrote:

> >First of all, if some sort of deadlock causes a transfer to fail to
> >complete, the host is expected to cancel and restart it.  Not the
> >gadget.
> >
> 
> Thanks for spending your time in reviewing this patch.  The deadlock
> is  a very rare case scenario and is happening because both the gadget
> controller & host controllers get out of sync and are stuck waiting for the
> relevant event. For example this issue is observed in stream protocol where
> the gadget controller is waiting on Host controller to issue PRIME transaction
> and  Host controller is waiting on gadget to issue ERDY transaction. Since
> the stream protocol is gadget driven, the host may not proceed further until it
> receives a valid Start Stream (ERDY) transaction from gadget.

That's not entirely true.  Can't the host cancel the transfer and then 
restart it?

> Since the gadget
> controller driver is aware that the controller is stuck , makes it responsible
> to recover the controller from hang condition by restarting the transfer (which
> triggers the controller FSM to issue ERDY to host).

Isn't there a cleaner way to recover than by cancelling the request and 
resubmitting it?

> >Second, if a request timer expires and the request is cancelled, the
> >gadget driver's completion handler will be called.  This is not what
> >you want if the UDC core is going to resubmit the request
> >automatically.
> >
> >Third, if a request timer expires and the timer handler calls
> >usb_ep_dequeue() followed immediately by usb_ep_queue_timeout(), the
> >resubmit will probably fail because the dequeue won't have completed
> >yet.
> >
> >Fourth, the patch contains a race between the timer expiring and the
> >request completing.
> 
> Thanks for correcting, I agree with you on all the above 3 cases that the
> resubmission of the request should only be done from the class driver and 
> the udc core should simply dequeue the request on timeout. I am not sure
> why I haven't seen any issue while testing on this patch series. I will modify
> the code to handle the resubmitting of requests properly.

How can the gadget driver know what timeout to use?  The host is
allowed to be as slow as it wants; the gadget driver doesn't have any
way to tell when the host wants to start the transfer.

Alan Stern