[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b082d8a8-cc96-7bc1-6ca4-589ab5ac677e@os.amperecomputing.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 20:52:15 +0700
From: Quan Nguyen <quan@...amperecomputing.com>
To: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-aspeed <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
Open Source Submission <patches@...erecomputing.com>,
Phong Vo <phong@...amperecomputing.com>,
"Thang Q . Nguyen" <thang@...amperecomputing.com>,
OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] i2c: aspeed: Acknowledge Tx done w/wo ACK irq late
On 20/05/2021 06:43, Joel Stanley wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 07:50, Quan Nguyen <quan@...amperecomputing.com> wrote:
>>
>> With Tx done w/wo ACK are ack'ed early at beginning of irq handler,
>
> Is w/wo a typo? If not, please write the full words ("with and without")
>
It is "with and without", will fix in next version
>> it is observed that, usually, the Tx done with Ack irq raises in the
>> READ REQUESTED state. This is unexpected and complaint as below appear:
>> "Unexpected Ack on read request"
>>
>> Assumed that Tx done should only be ack'ed once it was truly processed,
>> switch to late ack'ed this two irqs and seen this issue go away through
>> test with AST2500..
>
> Please read Guneter's commit message
> 2be6b47211e17e6c90ead40d24d2a5cc815f2d5c to confirm that your changes
> do not invalidate the fix that they made. Add them to CC for review.
>
> Again, this is a fix that is independent of the ssif work. Please send
> it separately with a Fixes line.
>
Will do and separate this patch into other series in next version.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Quan Nguyen <quan@...amperecomputing.com>
>> ---
>> v3:
>> + First introduce in v3 [Quan]
>>
>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
>> index 3fb37c3f23d4..b2e9c8f0ddf7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
>> @@ -606,8 +606,12 @@ static irqreturn_t aspeed_i2c_bus_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>
>> spin_lock(&bus->lock);
>> irq_received = readl(bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
>> - /* Ack all interrupts except for Rx done */
>> - writel(irq_received & ~ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE,
>> + /*
>> + * Ack all interrupts except for Rx done and
>> + * Tx done with/without ACK
>
> Nit: this comment can be on one line.
>
Thanks, will fix.
>
>> + */
>> + writel(irq_received &
>> + ~(ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE | ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK | ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK),
>> bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
>> readl(bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
>> irq_received &= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RECV_MASK;
>> @@ -652,12 +656,18 @@ static irqreturn_t aspeed_i2c_bus_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> "irq handled != irq. expected 0x%08x, but was 0x%08x\n",
>> irq_received, irq_handled);
>>
>> - /* Ack Rx done */
>> - if (irq_received & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE) {
>> - writel(ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE,
>> - bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
>> - readl(bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
>> - }
>> + /* Ack Rx done and Tx done with/without ACK */
>> + /* Note: Re-use irq_handled variable */
>
> I'm not sure what this note means.
>
>> + irq_handled = 0;
>> + if (irq_received & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE)
>> + irq_handled |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE;
>> + if (irq_received & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK)
>> + irq_handled |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK;
>> + if (irq_received & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK)
>> + irq_handled |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK;
>> + writel(irq_handled, bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
>
> Are you intentionally only acking the bits that are set when we read
> from STS_REG at the start of the handler? If not, we could write this
> instead:
>
> writel(ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE | ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK |
> ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK,
> bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
>
> If you only want to ack the bits that are set, then do this:
>
> writel(irq_received &
> (ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE | ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK |
> ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK),
> bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
>
> That way, you can avoid all of the tests.
>
Thanks, will fix this in next version.
>> + readl(bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
>
> When you move this, please add a comment that reminds us why we do a
> write-then-read (see commit c926c87b8e36dcc0ea5c2a0a0227ed4f32d0516a).
>
Will fix in next version.
>> +
>> spin_unlock(&bus->lock);
>> return irq_remaining ? IRQ_NONE : IRQ_HANDLED;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.28.0
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists