On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Felipe Balbi balbi@kernel.org wrote:
Hi,
Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linaro.org writes:
(One possible approach would be to have the setup routine return different values for explicit and implicit status stages -- for example, return 1 if it wants to submit an explicit status request. That wouldn't be very different from the current USB_GADGET_DELAYED_STATUS approach.)
not really, no. The idea was for composite.c and/or functions to support both methods (temporarily) and use "gadget->wants_explicit_stages" to explicitly queue DATA and STATUS. That would mean that f_mass_storage wouldn't have to return DELAYED_STATUS if (gadget->wants_explicit_stages).
After all UDCs are converted over and set wants_explicit_stages (which should all be done in a single series), then we get rid of the flag and the older method of DELAYED_STATUS.
(Sorry for late reply due to my holiday) I also met the problem pointed by Alan, from my test, I still want to need one return value to indicate if it wants to submit an explicit status request. Think about the Control-IN with a data stage, we can not get the STATUS phase request from usb_ep_queue() call, and we need
why not? wLength tells you that this is a 3-stage transfer. Gadget driver should be able to figure out that it needs to usb_ep_queue() another request for status stage.
to handle this STATUS phase request in dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(). But Control-OUT will get one 0-length IN request for the status stage from usb_ep_queue(), so we need one return value from setup routine to
no we don't :-)
distinguish these in dwc3_ep0_xfernotready(), or we can not handle status request correctly. Maybe I missed something else.
On the other hand, I am very doubtful about requiring explicit setup requests.
right, me too ;-)
So do you suggest me continue to try to do this? Thanks.
explicit setup? no explicit status? yes
If you don't wanna do it, it's fine :-) I'll just add to my TODO list. It just depends on how much other tasks you have on your end ;-)
OK, I will take some time to check and test again. It will be better if I send out one RFC patch to review.