lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-06-26 15:55    [W:6.298 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site