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:

> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:50:11AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, Paul Elder wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 02:06:31PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Paul Elder wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > A usb gadget function driver may or may not want to delay the status
> > > > > stage of a control OUT request. An instance where it might want to is to
> > > > > asynchronously validate the data of a class-specific request.
> > > > > 
> > > > > A function driver that wants an explicit status stage should set the
> > > > > newly added explicit_status flag of the usb_request corresponding to the
> > > > > data stage. Later on, the function driver can explicitly complete the
> > > > > status stage by enqueueing a usb_request for ACK, or calling
> > > > > usb_ep_set_halt() for STALL.
> > > > > 
> > > > > To support both explicit and implicit status stages, a UDC driver must
> > > > > call the newly added usb_gadget_control_complete function right before
> > > > > calling usb_gadget_giveback_request. To support the explicit status
> > > > > stage, it might then check what stage the usb_request was queued in, and
> > > > > for control IN ACK the host's zero-length data packet, or for control
> > > > > OUT send a zero-length DATA1 ACK packet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Elder <paul.elder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > v4 Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > v1 Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > This looks good and has passed my tests so far.
> > > 
> > > Good! Thank you :)
> > > 
> > > > 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 :/

Did you ever figure out the reason for the "!list_empty(&req->queue)" 
error with dummy_hcd?  Was it related to the confusion about completion 
callbacks for status requests?

Interesting new question: How does your code in musb tell the
difference between a 0-length data-stage reply to a control-IN
transfer, and a status-stage request?  Both would appear to the UDC
driver as 0-length request submissions for ep0.

Do you explicitly keep track of whether the data stage is pending?

Alan Stern