Re: [RFC PATCH v1] usb: core: add sysfs entry for usb device state

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:46:23AM -0700, Roy Luo wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:02 AM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 05:38:18PM +0000, Roy Luo wrote:
> > > Expose usb device state to userland as the information is useful in
> > > detecting non-compliant setups and diagnosing enumeration failures.
> > > For example:
> > > - End-to-end signal integrity issues: the device would fail port reset
> > >   repeatedly and thus be stuck in POWERED state.
> > > - Charge-only cables (missing D+/D- lines): the device would never enter
> > >   POWERED state as the HC would not see any pullup.
> > >
> > > What's the status quo?
> > > We do have error logs such as "Cannot enable. Maybe the USB cable is bad?"
> > > to flag potential setup issues, but there's no good way to expose them to
> > > userspace.
> > >
> > > Why add a sysfs entry in struct usb_port instead of struct usb_device?
> > > The struct usb_device is not device_add() to the system until it's in
> > > ADDRESS state hence we would miss the first two states. The struct
> > > usb_port is a better place to keep the information because its life
> > > cycle is longer than the struct usb_device that is attached to the port.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Roy Luo <royluo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/hub.h b/drivers/usb/core/hub.h
> > > index e23833562e4f..110143568c77 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/core/hub.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hub.h
> > > @@ -84,8 +84,10 @@ struct usb_hub {
> > >   * @peer: related usb2 and usb3 ports (share the same connector)
> > >   * @req: default pm qos request for hubs without port power control
> > >   * @connect_type: port's connect type
> > > + * @state: device state of the usb device attached to the port
> >
> > This member is essentially a duplicate of the .child member of the
> > usb_port structure.  That is, it points to the .state member of the
> > child device instead of to the child device itself, but this is pretty
> > much the same thing.  You could replace *(port_dev->state) with
> > port_dev->child->state.
> >
> Alan, thanks for the quick response!
> Yes, port_dev->state is indeed the same as port_dev->child->state. However,
> I still add port_dev->state because port_dev->child won't be assigned until
> the corresponding usb_device is in ADDRESS state.
> I wish I can assign get port_dev->child assigned earlier, but I think
> the current design - assign port_dev->child and device_add() after ADDRESS
> state - also makes sense because there are many ways that the enumeration
> could fail in the early stage. By adding port_dev->state, I can link
> usb_device->state to usb_port as soon as the usb_device is created to get
> around the limitation of port_dev->child.
> I would be very happy to hear other ideas.

Is there any real reason not to set port_dev->child as soon as the 
usb_device structure is created?  If enumeration fails, the pointer can 
be cleared.

Alan Stern