Re: [PATCH 2/5] usb: gadget: Add function wakeup support

[Elson Serrao]

On 8/12/2022 5:46 PM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> On 8/11/2022, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > On 8/11/2022, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > > On 8/11/2022, Elson Serrao wrote:
> > > > On 8/9/2022 6:08 PM, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > To summarize the points:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) The host only arms function remote wakeup if the device is capable of
> > > > > remote wakeup (check USB_CONFIG_ATT_WAKEUP in bmAttributes and hardware
> > > > > capability)
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) If the device is in suspend, the device can do remote wakeup (through
> > > > > LFPS handshake) if the function is armed for remote wakeup (through
> > > > > SET_FEATURE(FUNC_SUSPEND)).
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) If the link transitions to U0 after the device triggering a remote
> > > > > wakeup, the device will also send device notification function wake for
> > > > > all the interfaces armed with remote wakeup.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) If the device is not in suspend, the device can send device
> > > > > notification function wake if it's in U0.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, remote wakeup and function wake device notification are 2 separate
> > > > > operations. We have the usb_gadget_ops->wakeup() for remote wakeup. I
> > > > > suggested to maybe add usb_gadget_ops->send_wakeup_notification(gadget,
> > > > > intf_id) for the device notification. What you did was combining both
> > > > > operations in usb_gadget_ops->func_wakeup(). That may only work for
> > > > > point 4) (assuming you fix the U0 check), but not point 3).
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your feedback and summary. I will rename func_wakeup to
> > > > send_wakeup_notification to better align with the approach. The reason I
> > > > have combined remote_wakeup and function wake notification in
> > > > usb_gadget_ops->func_wakeup() is because since the implementation is at
> > > > function/composite level it has no knowledge on the link state. So I
> > > > have delegated that task to controller driver to handle the notification
> > > > accordingly. That is do a LFPS handshake first if the device is
> > > > suspended and then send notification (explained below). But we can
> > > > definitely separate this by adding an additional flag in the composite
> > > > layer to set the link state based on the gadget suspend callback called
> > > > when U3 SUSPEND interrupt is received. Let me know if you feel
> > > > separating the two is a better approach.
> > >
> > > The reason I think we need to separate it is because of point 3. As I
> > > note earlier, the spec states that "If remote wake event occurs in
> > > multiple functions, each function shall send a Function Wake Notification."
> > >
> > > But if there's no remote wake event, and the host brought the device up
> > > instead, then the function suspend state is retained.
> > >
> > > If we separate these 2 operations, the caller can check whether the
> > > operation went through properly. For example, if the wakeup() is
> > > initiated properly, but the function wake device notification didn't go
> > > through. We would only need to resend the device notification rather
> > > than initiate remote wakeup again.
> >
> > If we don't have to send device notification for other interfaces, we
> > can combine the operations here as you did.
>
> I still think it's better to split up the operations. The way you're
> handling it now is not clear.
>
> If the func_awake() returns -EAGAIN, I'd expect that the remote wake did
> not go through and expect user to retry again. But here it does initiate
> remote wake, but it just does not send device notification yet. This is
> confusing.
>
> Also, instead of all the function wake handling coming from the function
> driver, now we depend on the controller driver to call function resume()
> on state change to U0, which will trigger device notification. What
> happen if it doesn't call resume(). There's too many dependencies and it
> seems fragile.
>
> I think all this can be handled in the function driver. You can fix the
> dwc3 wakeup() and poll for U0/ON state rather than RECOVERY state, which
> is what it's supposed to poll.

For transitioning from U3 to U0, the current upstream implementation is 
to poll for U0 state when dwc3_gadget_wakeup() is called and it is a 
blocking call. (this is a common API for both HS and SS)

	/* poll until Link State changes to ON */
	retries = 20000;

	while (retries--) {
		reg = dwc3_readl(dwc->regs, DWC3_DSTS);

		/* in HS, means ON */
		if (DWC3_DSTS_USBLNKST(reg) == DWC3_LINK_STATE_U0)
			break;
	}

In my experiments I found that certain hosts take longer time to drive
HS resume signalling between the remote wakeup and the resume K and this 
time varies across hosts. Hence the above polling timer is not generic 
across hosts. So how do we converge on a polling timer value to work 
across HS/SS and without blocking the system for a long time?

Some data layers like TCP/IP hold a TX lock while sending data (that 
causes a remote wakeup event) and hence this wakeup() may run in atomic 
context.

To make this generic across hosts, I had switched to interrupt based 
approach, enabling link state events and return error value immediately 
from the dwc3_gadget_wakeup() API after doing a LFPS handshake. But 
yeah, then we have to rely on the resume callback as an indication that 
link is transitioned to ON state.



 On usb_gadget_wakeup() returns
> successful, we'd expect the device is linked up and woken up. then you
> can send device notification through a different api such as
> usb_gadget_send_wake_notification().
>
> Thanks,
> Thinh