Re: [PATCH 2/3] usb: dwc3: ulpi: Replace CPU-based busyloop with Protocol-based one

[Felipe Balbi]

Hi,

Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Originally the procedure of the ULPI transaction finish detection has been
> developed as a simple busy-loop with just decrementing counter and no
> delays. It's wrong since on different systems the loop will take a
> different time to complete. So if the system bus and CPU are fast enough
> to overtake the ULPI bus and the companion PHY reaction, then we'll get to
> take a false timeout error. Fix this by converting the busy-loop procedure
> to take the standard bus speed, address value and the registers access
> mode into account for the busy-loop delay calculation.
>
> Here is the way the fix works. It's known that the ULPI bus is clocked
> with 60MHz signal. In accordance with [1] the ULPI bus protocol is created
> so to spend 5 and 6 clock periods for immediate register write and read
> operations respectively, and 6 and 7 clock periods - for the extended
> register writes and reads. Based on that we can easily pre-calculate the
> time which will be needed for the controller to perform a requested IO
> operation. Note we'll still preserve the attempts counter in case if the
> DWC USB3 controller has got some internals delays.
>
> [1] UTMI+ Low Pin Interface (ULPI) Specification, Revision 1.1,
>     October 20, 2004, pp. 30 - 36.
>
> Fixes: 88bc9d194ff6 ("usb: dwc3: add ULPI interface support")
> Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/usb/dwc3/ulpi.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ulpi.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ulpi.c
> index 20f5d9aba317..0dbc826355a5 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/ulpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/ulpi.c
> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
>   * Author: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   */
>  
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/time64.h>
>  #include <linux/ulpi/regs.h>
>  
>  #include "core.h"
> @@ -17,12 +19,22 @@
>  		DWC3_GUSB2PHYACC_ADDR(ULPI_ACCESS_EXTENDED) | \
>  		DWC3_GUSB2PHYACC_EXTEND_ADDR(a) : DWC3_GUSB2PHYACC_ADDR(a))
>  
> -static int dwc3_ulpi_busyloop(struct dwc3 *dwc)
> +#define DWC3_ULPI_BASE_DELAY	DIV_ROUND_UP(NSEC_PER_SEC, 60000000L)
> +
> +static int dwc3_ulpi_busyloop(struct dwc3 *dwc, u8 addr, bool read)
>  {
> +	unsigned long ns = 5L * DWC3_ULPI_BASE_DELAY;
>  	unsigned count = 1000;
>  	u32 reg;
>  
> +	if (addr >= ULPI_EXT_VENDOR_SPECIFIC)
> +		ns += DWC3_ULPI_BASE_DELAY;
> +
> +	if (read)
> +		ns += DWC3_ULPI_BASE_DELAY;
> +
>  	while (count--) {
> +		ndelay(ns);

could we allow for a sleep here instead of a delay? Also, I wonder if
you need to make this so complex or should we just take the larger
access time of 7 clock cycles.

-- 
balbi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature