Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Jun 2023 08:05:26 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 01/28] xhci: Add support to allocate several interrupters | From | Wesley Cheng <> |
| |
Hi Mathias,
On 6/26/2023 6:55 AM, Mathias Nyman wrote: > 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> >
Sounds good! Thanks for helping with a non-technical question :). Just wanted to make sure I wasn't overstepping anywhere.
Thanks Wesley Cheng
| |