On 30.06.2021 21:21, Alan Stern wrote:

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 02:46:47PM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:

quoted

On 24.06.2021 16:23, Alan Stern wrote:

quoted

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 06:40:25AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:

quoted

On 23.06.2021 19:41, Alan Stern wrote:

quoted

Are there any systems beside the SAMA7G5 and others you tested which
might be affected by this patch?  Do they all work pretty much the
same way?  (I want to make sure no others will be adversely affected
by this change.)

I tested it on SAMA7G5, SAMA5D2 and SAM9X60. I tested the suspend/resume
to/from mem. On SAMA5D2 and SAM9X60 there is no clock provided by
transceiver A to OHCI. I encountered no issues on tested systems. These IPs
are also present on SAMA5D3 and SAMA5D4 systems which I haven't tested as I
expect to behave as SAMA5D2 (as the clocking scheme is the same with
SAMA5D2). I can also try it on a SAMA5D3 (I don't have a SAMA5D4 with me at
the moment), tough, just to be sure nothing is broken there too.

That doesn't answer my question.  I asked if there were any systems
which might be affected by your patch, and you listed a bunch of
systems that _aren't_ affected (that is, they continue to work
properly).

I wrongly understood the initial question.

quoted

What systems might run into trouble with this patch?

These are all I haven't tested and might be affected:
AT91RM9200,
SAM9260,
SAM9261,
SAM9263,
SAM9N12,
SAM9X35,
SAM9G45.

The last two (SAM9X35 and SAM9G45) have the same clocking scheme with
SAMA5D2 (which I tested). For the rest of them I cannot find the clocking
scheme in datasheet and don't have them to test (at least at the moment).

I see.  That seems reasonable; the others are probably the same as the
ones you tested.

Did you ever answer the question that Nicolas raised back on June 9 in:

        https://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=162324242003349&w=2

Not directly. I replied previously in this thread "For run-time control
(via ohci_at91_hub_control()), I agree with you that
the current implemented approach is not healthy (taking into account the
clock scheme above) and the fact that we do force the ports suspend on
ohci_at91_hub_control()". Nicolas was referring to ohci_at91_port_suspend()
calls in ohci_at91_hub_control() so I agreed with him that work might need
to be done also for this function.

Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea

Alan Stern