linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] drm/sun4i: hdmi: Implement I2C adapter for A10s DDC bus

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGb2v67CTXayDm4rhoJ4CNx9J=u+U+2_kh9xYsjHjCE8YnJ=ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2017 11:16:06 +0800
From:   Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To:     Jonathan Liu <net147@...il.com>
Cc:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] drm/sun4i: hdmi: Implement I2C adapter for A10s DDC bus

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Jonathan Liu <net147@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On 30 June 2017 at 01:56, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 08:39:33PM +1000, Jonathan Liu wrote:
>>> >> +     u32 int_status;
>>> >> +     u32 fifo_status;
>>> >> +     /* Read needs empty flag unset, write needs full flag unset */
>>> >> +     u32 flag = read ? SUN4I_HDMI_DDC_FIFO_STATUS_EMPTY :
>>> >> +                       SUN4I_HDMI_DDC_FIFO_STATUS_FULL;
>>> >> +     int ret;
>>> >> +
>>> >> +     /* Wait until error or FIFO ready */
>>> >> +     ret = readl_poll_timeout(hdmi->base + SUN4I_HDMI_DDC_INT_STATUS_REG,
>>> >> +                              int_status,
>>> >> +                              is_err_status(int_status) ||
>>> >> +                              is_fifo_flag_unset(hdmi, &fifo_status, flag),
>>> >> +                              min(len, SUN4I_HDMI_DDC_FIFO_SIZE) * byte_time,
>>> >> +                              100000);
>>> >> +
>>> >> +     if (is_err_status(int_status))
>>> >> +             return -EIO;
>>> >> +     if (ret)
>>> >> +             return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> >
>>> > Why not just have
>>> > ret = readl_poll_timeout(hdmi->base + SUN4I_HDMI_DDC_FIFO_STATUS_REG, reg,
>>> >                          !(reg & flag), 100, 100000);
>>> >
>>> > if (ret < 0)
>>> >         if (is_err_status())
>>> >                 return -EIO;
>>> >         return ret;
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> If I check error status after readl_poll_timeout and there is an error
>>> (e.g. the I2C address does not have a corresponding device connected
>>> or nothing connected to HDMI port) it will keep checking the fifo
>>> status even though error bit is set in the int status and then timeout
>>> after 100 ms. If it checks the int status register at the same time,
>>> it will error after 100 nanoseconds. I don't want to introduce
>>> unnecessary delays considering part of the reason for adding this
>>> driver to make it more usable for non-standard use cases.
>>
>> Well, polling for 100ms doesn't seem great either. What was the
>> rationale behind that timeout?
>>
>
> When an error occurs one of the error bits will be set in the
> INT_STATUS register so this is detected very quickly if I check the
> INT_STATUS and FIFO_STATUS at the same time. The 100 ms timeout is in
> case the I2C slave does clock stretching in which case the transfer
> may take longer than the predicted time.
>
>> And we can also reverse the check and look at the INT_STATUS
>> register. The errors will be there, and we can program the threshold
>> we want in both directions and use the
>> DDC_FIFO_Request_Interrupt_Status bit.
>>
>
> I did try that when I was doing the v3 patch but I couldn't get it to
> work as mentioned previously in the v3 patch discussion. I programmed
> the FIFO_RX_TRIGGER_THRES and FIFO_TX_TRIGGER_THRES in DDC_FIFO_Ctrl
> register at the same time as setting FIFO_Address_Clear but the
> request interrupt status bit did not get updated to the appropriate
> state that is consistent with the FIFO level and the thresholds. I did
> try this several times for subsequent patch versions without success.

The manual says "When FIFO level is above this value in read mode, DMA
request and FIFO request interrupt are asserted if relative enable is on."

Perhaps try enabling the interrupts? But if that were the case, wouldn't
using interrupts instead of polling be better?

ChenYu

>
>> Maxime
>>
>> --
>> Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
>> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
>> http://free-electrons.com
>
> Regards,
> Jonathan