On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:17:20AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi Paul, good to get a mail from you :-)
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:31:03PM -0700, pauldzim . wrote:
> > It's dangerous to use Update Transfer when the DWC3_TRB_CTRL_LST bit
> > might be set in one of the TRBs. The reason is, ther
Hi Paul, good to get a mail from you :-)
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:31:03PM -0700, pauldzim . wrote:
> It's dangerous to use Update Transfer when the DWC3_TRB_CTRL_LST bit
> might be set in one of the TRBs. The reason is, there is a window
> between checking that the transfer has not completed yet
Hi Felipe,
It's dangerous to use Update Transfer when the DWC3_TRB_CTRL_LST bit
might be set in one of the TRBs. The reason is, there is a window
between checking that the transfer has not completed yet and issuing
the Update Transfer command. If the hardware happens to complete the
transfer and s
We can infer Update Transfer by the fact that
req_queue is empty and DWC3_EP_BUSY isn't set.
This let's us a) rely on Update Transfer more often
(should be good for deeper queue lengths) and b) remove
the extra start_new parameter (done on a follow-up
patch)
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi
---
driv
