[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] usb: dfu: introduce dfuMANIFEST state

Lukasz Majewski l.majewski at samsung.com
Mon Mar 17 10:46:43 CET 2014


Hi Heiko,

> Hello Lukasz,
> 
> Am 14.03.2014 11:47, schrieb Lukasz Majewski:
> > Hi Heiko,
> >
> >> on nand flash using ubi, after the download of the new image into
> >> the flash, the "rest" of the nand sectors get erased while flushing
> >> the medium. With current u-boot version dfu-util may show:
> >>
> >> Starting download:
> >> [##################################################] finished!
> >> state(7) = dfuMANIFEST, status(0) = No error condition is present
> >> unable to read DFU status
> >>
> >> as get_status is not answered while erasing sectors, if erasing
> >> needs some time.
> >>
> >> So do the following changes to prevent this:
> >>
> >> - introduce dfuManifest state
> >>    According to dfu specification
> >>    ( http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/usbdfu10.pdf )
> >> section 7: "the device enters the dfuMANIFEST-SYNC state and awaits
> >> the solicitation of the status report by the host. Upon receipt of
> >> the anticipated DFU_GETSTATUS, the device enters the dfuMANIFEST
> >> state, where it completes its reprogramming operations."
> >>
> >> - when stepping into dfuManifest state, sending a PollTimeout
> >>    DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT in ms, to the host, so the host
> >>    (dfu-util) waits the PollTimeout before sending a get_status
> >> again.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher<hs at denx.de>
> >> Cc: Lukasz Majewski<l.majewski at samsung.com>
> >> Cc: Kyungmin Park<kyungmin.park at samsung.com>
> >> Cc: Marek Vasut<marex at denx.de>
> >> ---
> >>   README                     |  5 ++++
> >>   drivers/dfu/dfu.c          |  1 -
> >>   drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c | 60
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >> include/dfu.h              |  3 +++ 4 files changed, 59
> >> insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/README b/README
> >> index 216f0c7..5076248 100644
> >> --- a/README
> >> +++ b/README
> >> @@ -1525,6 +1525,11 @@ The following options need to be configured:
> >>   		this to the maximum filesize (in bytes) for the
> >> buffer. Default is 4 MiB if undefined.
> >>
> >> +		DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT
> >> +		Poll timeout [ms], which the device sends to the
> >> host when
> >> +		entering dfuMANIFEST state. Host waits this
> >> timeout, before
> >> +		sending again an USB request to the device.
> >> +
> >
> > Could you also add information about the DFU_DEFAULT_POLL_TIMEOUT to
> > the README, please (I've forgotten to do that)?
> 
> Done.
> 
> [...]
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c
> >> b/drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c index a045864..f4bf918 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c
> >> @@ -164,15 +164,22 @@ static void dnload_request_complete(struct
> >> usb_ep *ep, struct usb_request *req)
> >>   	dfu_write(dfu_get_entity(f_dfu->altsetting), req->buf,
> >>   		  req->length, f_dfu->blk_seq_num);
> >> +}
> >>
> >> -	if (req->length == 0)
> >> -		puts("DOWNLOAD ... OK\nCtrl+C to exit ...\n");
> >> +static void dnload_request_flush(struct usb_ep *ep, struct
> >> usb_request *req) +{
> >> +	struct f_dfu *f_dfu = req->context;
> >> +
> >> +	req->length = 0;
> >> +	dfu_flush(dfu_get_entity(f_dfu->altsetting), req->buf,
> >> +		  req->length, f_dfu->blk_seq_num);
> >>   }
> >>
> >>   static void handle_getstatus(struct usb_request *req)
> >>   {
> >>   	struct dfu_status *dstat = (struct dfu_status *)req->buf;
> >>   	struct f_dfu *f_dfu = req->context;
> >> +	int setpolltimeout = 1;
> >
> > We can go away with this flag. Please see below.
> >
> >>
> >>   	switch (f_dfu->dfu_state) {
> >>   	case DFU_STATE_dfuDNLOAD_SYNC:
> >> @@ -180,17 +187,24 @@ static void handle_getstatus(struct
> >> usb_request *req) f_dfu->dfu_state = DFU_STATE_dfuDNLOAD_IDLE;
> >>   		break;
> >>   	case DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST_SYNC:
> >> +		f_dfu->dfu_state = DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST;
> >>   		break;
> >> +	case DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST:
> >> +		dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat,
> >> DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT);
> >> +		setpolltimeout = 0;
> >>   	default:
> >>   		break;
> >>   	}
> >>
> >> -	dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat, 0);
> >> +	if (setpolltimeout) {
> >> +		dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat, 0);
> >>
> >> -	if (f_dfu->poll_timeout)
> >> -		if (!(f_dfu->blk_seq_num %
> >> -		      (dfu_get_buf_size() / DFU_USB_BUFSIZ)))
> >> -			dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat,
> >> f_dfu->poll_timeout);
> >> +		if (f_dfu->poll_timeout)
> >> +			if (!(f_dfu->blk_seq_num %
> >> +			      (dfu_get_buf_size() /
> >> DFU_USB_BUFSIZ)))
> >> +				dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat,
> >> +
> >> f_dfu->poll_timeout);
> >> +	}
> >
> > What about this solution:
> >
> > 	dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat, 0);
> >
> > 	switch (f_dfu->dfu_state) {
> > 	case DFU_STATE_dfuDNLOAD_SYNC:
> > 	case DFU_STATE_dfuDNBUSY:
> > 		f_dfu->dfu_state = DFU_STATE_dfuDNLOAD_IDLE;
> > 		break;
> > 	case DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST_SYNC:
> > 		f_dfu->dfu_state = DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST;
> > 		break;
> > 	case DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST:
> > 		dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat,
> > DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT); default:
> > 		break;
> > 	}
> >
> > 	if (f_dfu->poll_timeout)
> > 		if (!(f_dfu->blk_seq_num %
> > 		      (dfu_get_buf_size() / DFU_USB_BUFSIZ)))
> > 			dfu_set_poll_timeout(dstat,f_dfu->poll_timeout);
> >
> > Then we could avoid setpolltimeout flag.
> 
> Done.
> 
> >>   	/* send status response */
> >>   	dstat->bStatus = f_dfu->dfu_status;
> >> @@ -446,10 +460,11 @@ static int state_dfu_manifest_sync(struct
> >> f_dfu *f_dfu, switch (ctrl->bRequest) {
> >>   	case USB_REQ_DFU_GETSTATUS:
> >>   		/* We're MainfestationTolerant */
> >> -		f_dfu->dfu_state = DFU_STATE_dfuIDLE;
> >> +		f_dfu->dfu_state = DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST;
> >>   		handle_getstatus(req);
> >>   		f_dfu->blk_seq_num = 0;
> >>   		value = RET_STAT_LEN;
> >> +		req->complete = dnload_request_flush;
> >>   		break;
> >>   	case USB_REQ_DFU_GETSTATE:
> >>   		handle_getstate(req);
> >> @@ -463,6 +478,33 @@ static int state_dfu_manifest_sync(struct
> >> f_dfu *f_dfu, return value;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> +static int state_dfu_manifest(struct f_dfu *f_dfu,
> >> +			      const struct usb_ctrlrequest *ctrl,
> >> +			      struct usb_gadget *gadget,
> >> +			      struct usb_request *req)
> >> +{
> >> +	int value = 0;
> >> +
> >> +	switch (ctrl->bRequest) {
> >> +	case USB_REQ_DFU_GETSTATUS:
> >> +		/* We're MainfestationTolerant */
> >
> > Please look into the comments globally - we do now support the
> > DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST_* states
> 
> Hmm.. Yes, but we are MainfestationTolerant ... so the comment is
> Ok, or?

My understanding of "ManifestationTolerant" is as follow:

"We didn't used the dfuMANIFEST state and immediately went to dfuIDLE
state from dfuDOWNLOAD-IDLE, so we are 'ManifestationTolerant'".


> 
> >> +		f_dfu->dfu_state = DFU_STATE_dfuIDLE;
> >> +		handle_getstatus(req);
> >> +		f_dfu->blk_seq_num = 0;
> >> +		value = RET_STAT_LEN;
> >> +		puts("DOWNLOAD ... OK\nCtrl+C to exit ...\n");
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case USB_REQ_DFU_GETSTATE:
> >> +		handle_getstate(req);
> >> +		break;
> >> +	default:
> >> +		f_dfu->dfu_state = DFU_STATE_dfuERROR;
> >> +		value = RET_STALL;
> >> +		break;
> >> +	}
> >> +	return value;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>   static int state_dfu_upload_idle(struct f_dfu *f_dfu,
> >>   				 const struct usb_ctrlrequest
> >> *ctrl, struct usb_gadget *gadget,
> >> @@ -539,7 +581,7 @@ static dfu_state_fn dfu_state[] = {
> >>   	state_dfu_dnbusy,        /* DFU_STATE_dfuDNBUSY */
> >>   	state_dfu_dnload_idle,   /* DFU_STATE_dfuDNLOAD_IDLE */
> >>   	state_dfu_manifest_sync, /* DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST_SYNC */
> >> -	NULL,                    /* DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST */
> >> +	state_dfu_manifest,	 /* DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST */
> >>   	NULL,                    /*
> >> DFU_STATE_dfuMANIFEST_WAIT_RST */ state_dfu_upload_idle,   /*
> >> DFU_STATE_dfuUPLOAD_IDLE */ state_dfu_error          /*
> >> DFU_STATE_dfuERROR */ diff --git a/include/dfu.h b/include/dfu.h
> >> index 272a245..6c71ecb 100644
> >> --- a/include/dfu.h
> >> +++ b/include/dfu.h
> >> @@ -80,6 +80,9 @@ static inline unsigned int get_mmc_blk_size(int
> >> dev) #ifndef DFU_DEFAULT_POLL_TIMEOUT
> >>   #define DFU_DEFAULT_POLL_TIMEOUT 0
> >>   #endif
> >> +#ifndef DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT
> >> +#define DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT	DFU_DEFAULT_POLL_TIMEOUT
> >> +#endif
> >>
> >>   struct dfu_entity {
> >>   	char			name[DFU_NAME_SIZE];
> >
> > I did some preliminary DFU testing and it seems to not introduce any
> > regressions.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > I'm looking forward for v2.
> 
> I am ready for sending it, but need response from you as I think the
> comment is correct ...

Please explain why it is correct in your opinion.

> 
> BTW:
> With the DFU_MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT solution, we have a static timeout,
> which is suboptimal, as we have a big MTD partittion and we must have
> a "big" timeout for erasing (in the worst case) the complete
> partition. Also this big timeout is (on nand using ubi) only needed
> for the nand ubi partiton, not for the raw partitions containing for
> example u-boot ... where it could be 0 ...

So, the problem is with setting a worst case value for all kinds of
your dfu entities?

> 
> Better would be, to have the information how long does it take to
> erase one sector (define?) and how many sectors we have to erase, and
> sending this value to the host... Do you see a chance to get this
> information within the dfu code?

We have f_dfu->poll_timeout field in the dfu function. Value from
it sets the poll timeout to be waited by the host.

Maybe it would be better to reuse this field to set it accordingly for
MANIFEST_POLL_TIMEOUT. Now it is used for setting timeout when we store
big chunks of data (32 MiB). 

> 
> Thinking about it, possibly we need a callback from the mtd layer,
> which gives back the info, how long the flush would take, as this
> is a media/partition size dependent timeout ...

I think that we could add this callback - called e.g. (*poll_timeout)
to the struct [mmc|nand]_internal_data. Then some helper functions
would be defined at dfu_[mmc|nand].c and used at f_dfu.c

Other question is if we accept current patches and wait for above
improvement to follow of drop them and wait for solution addressing
those issues.

What do you think?

> 
> bye,
> Heiko



-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group


More information about the U-Boot mailing list