[RFC 13/13] USB: Disable hub-initiated LPM for comms devices.

[Sarah Sharp]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:20:19PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:45:28PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > [Resending with a smaller Cc list]
> > 
> > Hub-initiated LPM is not good for USB communications devices.  Comms
> > devices should be able to tell when their link can go into a lower power
> > state, because they know when an incoming transmission is finished.
> > Ideally, these devices would slam their links into a lower power state,
> > using the device-initiated LPM, after finishing the last packet of their
> > data transfer.
> > 
> > If we enable the idle timeouts for the parent hubs to enable
> > hub-initiated LPM, we will get a lot of useless LPM packets on the bus
> > as the devices reject LPM transitions when they're in the middle of
> > receiving data.  Worse, some devices might blindly accept the
> > hub-initiated LPM and power down their radios while they're in the
> > middle of receiving a transmission.
> > 
> > The Intel Windows folks are disabling hub-initiated LPM for all USB
> > communications devices under a xHCI USB 3.0 host.  In order to keep
> > the Linux behavior as close as possible to Windows, we need to do the
> > same in Linux.
> 
> How is the USB core on Windows determining that LPM should be turned off
> for these devices?  Surely they aren't modifying each individual driver
> like this is, right?  Any way we also can do this in the core?

No, I don't think they're modifying individual drivers.  Maybe they
placed a shim/filter driver below other drivers?

Basically, I don't know the exact details of what the Windows folks are
doing.  The recommendation from the Intel Windows team was simply to
turn hub-initiated LPM off for "all communications devices".  Perhaps
the Windows USB core is looking for specific USB class codes?  Or maybe
it has some older API that lets the core know it's a communications
device?

I'm not really sure we can do it in the USB core with out basically
duplicating all the class/PID/VID matching in the communications driver.
I think just adding a flag might be the best way.  I'm open to
suggestions though.

> Or, turn it around the other way, and only enable it if we know it's
> safe to do so, in each driver, but I guess that would be even messier.

Yeah, I think it would be messier.

Sarah Sharp