Date:   Mon, 6 May 2019 21:32:40 +0530
From:   Raag Jadav <raagjadav@...il.com>
To:     Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com, ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com
Cc:     alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: at91: handle TXRDY interrupt spam

On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:19:01AM +0000, Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04.05.2019 02:58, Raag Jadav wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 04:01:16PM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 04:03:32AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> >>> External E-Mail
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:00:05AM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >>>> Hello Raag,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 01:06:48PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> >>>>> External E-Mail
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Performing i2c write operation while SDA or SCL line is held
> >>>>> or grounded by slave device, we go into infinite at91_twi_write_next_byte
> >>>>> loop with TXRDY interrupt spam.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry but I am not sure to have the full picture, the controller is in
> >>>> slave or master mode?
> >>>>
> >>>> SVREAD is only used in slave mode. When SVREAD is set, it means that a read
> >>>> access is performed and your issue concerns the write operation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>>
> >>>> Ludovic
> >>>
> >>> Yes, even though the datasheet suggests that SVREAD is irrelevant in master mode,
> >>> TXRDY and SVREAD are the only ones being set in status register upon reproducing the issue.
> >>> Couldn't think of a better way to handle such strange behaviour.
> >>> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >>
> >> I have the confirmation that you can't rely on the SVREAD flag when in
> >> master mode. This flag should always have the same value.
> >>
> >> I am trying to understand what could lead to your situation. Can you
> >> give me more details. What kind of device it is? What does lead to this
> >> situation? Does it happen randomly or not?
> > 
> > One of the sama5d2 based board I worked on, was having trouble complete its boot
> > because of a faulty i2c device, which was randomly holding down the SDA line
> > on i2c write operation, not allowing the controller to complete its transmission,
> > causing a massive TXRDY interrupt spam, ultimately hanging the processor.
> > 
> > Another strange observation was that SVREAD was being set in the status register
> > along with TXRDY, every time I reproduced the issue.
> > You can reproduce it by simply grounding the SDA line and performing i2c write
> > on the bus.
> > 
> > Note that NACK, LOCK or TXCOMP are never set as the transmission never completes.
> > I'm not sure why slave bits are being set in master mode,
> > but it's been working reliably for me.
> > 
> > This patch doesn't recover the SDA line. It just prevents the processor from
> > getting hanged in case of i2c bus lockup.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have noticed the same hanging at some points... In my case it is 
> because of this patch:
> 
> commit e8f39e9fc0e0b7bce24922da925af820bacb8ef8
> Author: David Engraf <david.engraf@...go.com>
> Date:   Thu Apr 26 11:53:14 2018 +0200
> 
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
> index bfd1fdf..3f3e8b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
> @@ -518,8 +518,16 @@ static irqreturn_t atmel_twi_interrupt(int irq, 
> void *dev_id)
>           * the RXRDY interrupt first in order to not keep garbage data 
> in the
>           * Receive Holding Register for the next transfer.
>           */
> -       if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_RXRDY)
> -               at91_twi_read_next_byte(dev);
> +       if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_RXRDY) {
> +               /*
> +                * Read all available bytes at once by polling RXRDY 
> usable w/
> +                * and w/o FIFO. With FIFO enabled we could also read 
> RXFL and
> +                * avoid polling RXRDY.
> +                */
> +               do {
> +                       at91_twi_read_next_byte(dev);
> +               } while (at91_twi_read(dev, AT91_TWI_SR) & AT91_TWI_RXRDY);
> +       }
> 
> 
> In my opinion having a do/while with an exit condition relying solely on 
> a bit read from hardware is unacceptable in IRQ context - kernel can 
> hang here.
> A timeout would be a solution...
> 
> For me, reverting this patch solves hanging issues.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Eugen

Thank you for your input, but my issue concerns i2c write operation.
I haven't noticed any issue with i2c read yet.
But given the same scenario, it could be true for RXRDY as well.

Cheers,
Raag

> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Raag
> > 
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Ludovic
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Raag
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raagjadav@...il.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>   drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c | 6 +++++-
> >>>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
> >>>>> index 3f3e8b3..b2f5fdb 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
> >>>>> @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@
> >>>>>   #define	AT91_TWI_TXCOMP		BIT(0)	/* Transmission Complete */
> >>>>>   #define	AT91_TWI_RXRDY		BIT(1)	/* Receive Holding Register Ready */
> >>>>>   #define	AT91_TWI_TXRDY		BIT(2)	/* Transmit Holding Register Ready */
> >>>>> +#define	AT91_TWI_SVREAD		BIT(3)	/* Slave Read */
> >>>>>   #define	AT91_TWI_OVRE		BIT(6)	/* Overrun Error */
> >>>>>   #define	AT91_TWI_UNRE		BIT(7)	/* Underrun Error */
> >>>>>   #define	AT91_TWI_NACK		BIT(8)	/* Not Acknowledged */
> >>>>> @@ -571,7 +572,10 @@ static irqreturn_t atmel_twi_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>>>>   		at91_disable_twi_interrupts(dev);
> >>>>>   		complete(&dev->cmd_complete);
> >>>>>   	} else if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_TXRDY) {
> >>>>> -		at91_twi_write_next_byte(dev);
> >>>>> +		if ((status & AT91_TWI_SVREAD) && (dev->buf_len == 0))
> >>>>> +			at91_twi_write(dev, AT91_TWI_IDR, AT91_TWI_TXRDY);
> >>>>> +		else
> >>>>> +			at91_twi_write_next_byte(dev);
> >>>>>   	}
> >>>>>   
> >>>>>   	/* catch error flags */
> >>>>> -- 
> >>>>> 2.7.4
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> >>> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> >>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> >>>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > 
> > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists