Hi,
On 19 October 2016 at 18:09, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang writes:
>>
>> We should not check the DWC3_EP_ENABLED flag, since we will clear all
>> flags in __dwc3_gadget_ep_disable() after setting
>> DWC3_EP_END_TRANSFER_PENDING flags in dwc3_stop_active_transfer().
>
> good cat
Hi,
Baolin Wang writes:
>> Baolin Wang writes:
>>> Sure. The problem I met was, when we change the USB function with
>>> configfs frequently, sometimes it will hang the system to crash. The
>>> reason is, we will start end transfer command when disable the
>>> endpoint, but sometimes the end t
Hi,
On 18 October 2016 at 16:21, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang writes:
>> Sure. The problem I met was, when we change the USB function with
>> configfs frequently, sometimes it will hang the system to crash. The
>> reason is, we will start end transfer command when disable the
>>
Hi,
Baolin Wang writes:
>> >> 8<
>> >> From f3fa94f3171709f787a30e3c5ce69a668960b66e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> >> From: Felipe Balbi
>> >> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:09:47 +0300
>> >> Subject: [PATCH v2
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:19:38AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Alan Stern writes:
> >> Baolin Wang writes:
> >> >> Felipe Balbi writes:
> >> >>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
> >> >>> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
> >> >>> interrupt before moving on
On 18 October 2016 at 16:21, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang writes:
>>> Alan Stern writes:
> Baolin Wang writes:
> >> Felipe Balbi writes:
> >>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
> >>> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
> >>> interrupt
Hi,
Baolin Wang writes:
>> Alan Stern writes:
Baolin Wang writes:
>> Felipe Balbi writes:
>>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
>>> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
>>> interrupt before moving on. Note that this should
>>> only be done
Hi,
On 18 October 2016 at 15:19, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Alan Stern writes:
>>> Baolin Wang writes:
>>> >> Felipe Balbi writes:
>>> >>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
>>> >>> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
>>> >>> interrupt before moving on. Note that th
Hi,
Alan Stern writes:
>> Baolin Wang writes:
>> >> Felipe Balbi writes:
>> >>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
>> >>> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
>> >>> interrupt before moving on. Note that this should
>> >>> only be done if we're dealing with one of the cor
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:51:48PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Peter Chen writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:06:49AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Baolin,
> >>
> >> Baolin Wang writes:
> >> >> Felipe Balbi writes:
> >> >>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we shoul
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi Baolin,
>
> Baolin Wang writes:
> >> Felipe Balbi writes:
> >>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
> >>> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
> >>> interrupt before moving on. Note that this should
> >>> only be done if we're d
Hi,
Peter Chen writes:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:06:49AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>
>> Hi Baolin,
>>
>> Baolin Wang writes:
>> >> Felipe Balbi writes:
>> >>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
>> >>> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
>> >>> interrupt before mov
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:06:49AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi Baolin,
>
> Baolin Wang writes:
> >> Felipe Balbi writes:
> >>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
> >>> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
> >>> interrupt before moving on. Note that this should
> >>>
Hi Baolin,
Baolin Wang writes:
>> Felipe Balbi writes:
>>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
>>> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
>>> interrupt before moving on. Note that this should
>>> only be done if we're dealing with one of the core
>>> revisions that actually r
Hi Felipe,
On 14 October 2016 at 19:04, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Felipe Balbi writes:
>> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
>> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
>> interrupt before moving on. Note that this should
>> only be done if we're dealing with one of the c
Hi,
Felipe Balbi writes:
> Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
> actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
> interrupt before moving on. Note that this should
> only be done if we're dealing with one of the core
> revisions that actually require the interrupt before
> moving on.
Instead of just delaying for 100us, we should
actually wait for End Transfer Command Complete
interrupt before moving on. Note that this should
only be done if we're dealing with one of the core
revisions that actually require the interrupt before
moving on.
Reported-by: Baolin Wang
Signed-off-by
17 matches
Mail list logo