[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <309f94fa-40ec-c3be-7cdf-78a910a5b209@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:47:23 +0000
From: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
CC: "jdelvare@...e.com" <jdelvare@...e.com>,
"linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: Errant readings on LM81 with T2080 SoC
On 12/03/21 10:34 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>> On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
>>>> CPU load. Normally clock stretching is triggered by the device, not
>>>> by the host.
>>> One example: Some hosts need an interrupt per byte to know if they
>>> should send ACK or NACK. If that interrupt is delayed, they stretch the
>>> clock.
>>>
>> It feels like something like that is happening. Looking at the T2080
>> Reference manual there is an interesting timing diagram (Figure 14-2 if
>> someone feels like looking it up). It shows SCL low between the ACK for
>> the address and the data byte. I think if we're delayed in sending the
>> next byte we could violate Ttimeout or Tlow:mext from the SMBUS spec.
>>
> I think that really leaves you only two options that I can see:
> Rework the driver to handle critical actions (such as setting TXAK,
> and everything else that might result in clock stretching) in the
> interrupt handler, or rework the driver to handle everything in
> a high priority kernel thread.
One thing I've found that does seem to avoid the problem is to disable
preemption, use polling and replace the schedule() in i2c_wait() with
udelay(50). That's kind of like the kernel thread option.
> Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists