RE: [linux-usb-devel] [4/4] 2.6.23-rc3: known regressions

<[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.usb.devel
Message-ID <DFEF91B22ED07447AB6AA4B237F913F9B18F45@ausx3mpc125.aus.amer.dell.com>
>> That could definitely cause mouse lock-ups.  Sorry, that should have
>> occurred to me yesterday when you mentioned the problem your kids
>> were seeing, but it didn't for some reason.
> 
> Btw, could it have caused the USB stack to be *really* confused? Some
> of those mouse lockups ended up also locking the machine hard (ie no
> ping, no nothing), and I'm a bit worried that there was something
> else going on too..   
> 

Unfortunately, yes, that sounds exactly like what happened with the
nVidia controller.  The problem was with my patch, but was fixed with
the later patch.  I doubt there was anything else going on.

> That said, if you can actually re-create the MMF problems, could you
> please try the patch that Arjan suggested? Ie add a 
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Some broadcom chips are buggy and can't take more than 5 usec
as
> DMA 
> 	 * latency; inform the rest of kernel of this.
> 	 */
> 	if (weird_broadcom_chip())
> 		set_acceptable_latency("ehci", 5);
> 
> to the USB driver, and then add something like
> 
> 	static inline int cpufreq_acceptable_latency(struct
cpufreq_policy
> 	*policy) {
> 		unsigned long latency;
> 
> 		/* Policy latency in usec */
> 		latency = policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency / 1000;
> 
> 		if (latency > system_latency_constraint())
> 			return -EINVAL;
> 
> 		return 0;
> 	}
> 
> adn then add calls to this from both the "__cpufreq_set_policy()"
> function and the "__cpufreq_driver_target()" one too.. 
> 
> That should disable cpufreq with that broken chip, which is perhaps a
> big draconian, but it's certainly better than having the USB layer
> know about cpufreq internals directly.  
> 
> In the longer run, I think we can move the
> "system_latency_constraint()" 
> checking from the policy registration into each CPU frequency driver,
> so that it could be more dynamically decide about "can we do it right
> _now_"  
> rather than globally saying "we can't do it with this hardware".
> 
> 				Linus

I will work on that, thank you for the help.

Stuart
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.