Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Jun 2023 16:55:46 +0300 | From | Mathias Nyman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 01/28] xhci: Add support to allocate several interrupters |
| |
On 24.6.2023 1.37, Wesley Cheng wrote: > Hi Mathias, > > On 3/13/2023 1:32 PM, Wesley Cheng wrote: >> Hi Mathias, >> >> On 3/10/2023 7:07 AM, Mathias Nyman wrote: >>> On 9.3.2023 1.57, Wesley Cheng wrote: >>>> From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com> >>>> >>>> Introduce xHCI APIs to allow for clients to allocate and free >>>> interrupters. This allocates an array of interrupters, which is based on >>>> the max_interrupters parameter. The primary interrupter is set as the >>>> first entry in the array, and secondary interrupters following after. >>>> >>> >>> I'm thinking about changing this offloading xHCI API >>> xhci should be aware and keep track of which devices and endpoints that >>> are offloaded to avoid device getting offloaded twice, avoid xhci driver >>> from queuing anything itself for these, and act properly if the offloaded >>> device or entire host is removed. >>> >>> So first thing audio side would need to do do is register/create an >>> offload entry for the device using the API: >>> >>> struct xhci_sideband *xhci_sideband_register(struct usb_device *udev) >>> >>> (xHCI specs calls offload sideband) >>> Then endpoints and interrupters can be added and removed from this >>> offload entry >>> >>> I have some early thoughts written as non-compiling code in: >>> >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mnyman/xhci.git feature_interrupters >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mnyman/xhci.git/log/?h=feature_interrupters >>> >>> Let me know what you think about this. >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@quicinc.com> >>> >>> My Signed-off-by tag is being misused here. >>> >>> I wrote a chunk of the code in this patch as PoC that I shared in a separate topic branch. >>> It was incomplete and not intended for upstream yet. (lacked locking, several fixme parts, etc..) >>> The rest of the code in this patch is completely new to me. >>> >> >> Sorry about this. I cherry picked the change directly from your branch, so it carried your signed off tag with it. Will make to include them properly next time. >> > > I'm about ready to submit the next revision for this set of changes, and I was wondering how we should handle the changes you made on: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mnyman/xhci.git/log/?h=feature_interrupters > > I did make some modifications to some of the interrupter fixme tags you had, and also updated the xhci-sideband APIs with the proper logic. I don't believe it is correct for me to submit a set of patches authored by you without your signed off tag. (checkpatch throws an error saying the author did not sign off on the change) >
Note that the first patch "xhci: split allocate interrupter into separate alloacte and add parts" is already in usb-next on its way to 6.5
Maybe Co-developed-by would work in this case, with a small explanation at the end of the commit message. Something like:
Locking, DMA something and feataure x added by Wesley Cheng to complete original concept code by Mathias
Signed-off-by: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com> Co-developed-by: Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@quicinc.com> Signed-off-by: Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@quicinc.com>
Thanks -Mathias
| |