usb: ci_udc: fixes and cleanups

Quoted 23 lines · J?rg Krause

Quoted 17 lines · Stephen Warren

From: Stephen Warren <[email protected]>

This is a series of small fixes and cleanups either required by those fixes, or enabled now that the fixes are made.

I hope that either patch 1 or 4 might fix the issues J?rg is seeing, but I'm not sure that will happen. The other patches shouldn't change any behaviour.

Stephen Warren (6):
usb: ci_udc: fix ci_flush_{qh,qtd} calls in ci_udc_probe()
usb: ci_udc: don't assume QTDs are adjacent when transmitting ZLPs
usb: ci_udc: lift ilist size calculations to global scope
usb: ci_udc: fix items array size/stride calculation
usb: ci_udc: remove controller.items array
usb: ci_udc: don't memalign() struct ci_req allocations

Quoted 5 lines

   drivers/usb/gadget/ci_udc.c | 62
++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
   drivers/usb/gadget/ci_udc.h |  1 -
   2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

Quoted 8 lines

Good news! The last patch usb: ci_udc: don't memalign() struct ci_req allocations removes the timeout error after starting the fourth run of tftp in a row.

This is how I tested. Checked out u-boot-usb/master branch. Applied the necessary patches to support our board. Applied the patches step after step. After applying a patch reset the board and run tftp from console until an error occured, which is always the fourth run.

How many times did you boot the board for each patch? I'm more interested in how often the first TFTP after a reset/power-on passes or fails, so it would be nice to boot the board many times to see what happens to the first TFTP invocation too. This is especially true since you'd indicated before that the problem was (at least sometimes) visible on the first TFTP invocation, and this "it fails the fourth time" symptom is something completely new.

Quoted 4 lines

This is the case
until applying patch usb: ci_udc: don't memalign() struct ci_req allocations, which throws no timeout error within running tftp about 60 times in a row.

That's quite odd. That patch definitely should not affect behaviour (and indeed I only sent it as an after-thought). If it does, then the only explanation I can think of is that the malloc heap's alignment changed, which just happens to hide the bug you're seeing. No doubt, there is still some lingering cache-flushing bug or similar...

BTW, did you fix the U-Boot header files in your board support patches, so that everything correctly knows that the cache line size is 32? I think it's mandatory to fix that issue before testing the USB code.