linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: imx: increase retries on arbitration loss

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: <41991ce2-3e88-5afc-6def-6e718d624768@norik.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2022 09:01:46 +0100
From:   Primoz Fiser <primoz.fiser@...ik.com>
To:     Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
Cc:     Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        upstream@...ts.phytec.de, Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>,
        Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        francesco.dolcini@...adex.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: imx: increase retries on arbitration loss

Hi all,

On 16. 12. 22 13:51, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 01:23:29PM +0100, Primoz Fiser wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 16. 12. 22 12:13, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:02:27PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:41:08AM +0100, Primoz Fiser wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marco,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16. 12. 22 10:45, Marco Felsch wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Primoz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22-12-16, Primoz Fiser wrote:
>>>>>>> By default, retries value is set to 0 (no retries). Set retries to more
>>>>>>> sensible value of 3 to allow i2c core to re-attempt transfer in case of
>>>>>>> i2c arbitration loss (i2c-imx returns -EAGAIN errno is such case).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apart the fact that the number of retries vary a lot and so the client
>>>>>> driver behaviour can vary a lot which is not good IMHO, why do you think
>>>>>> that 3 is a sufficient number?
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO it is better than leaving it at 0 (no retries)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Setting it to sensible value like 3 will at least attempt to make transfer
>>>>> in case arbitration-loss occurs.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If an arbitration loss happen, why do you think that retrying it 3 times
>>>>>> changes that?
>>>>>
>>>>> I our case, setting retries to non-zero value solves issues with PMIC
>>>>> shutdown on phyboard-mira which in some rare cases fails with "Failed to
>>>>> shutdown (err =  -11)" (-EAGAIN).
>>>>>
>>>>> To me it makes common sense retries is set to non-zero value especially for
>>>>> such rare conditions/situations.
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Ys1bw9zuIwWS+bqw@shikoro/
>>
>> Ohh I see.
>>
>> Reading through the thread I guess we aren't getting this mainlined at all
>> :)
>>
>> The only solid point in the thread seems to be that in that case we are not
>> covering up the potential i2c hardware issues?
> 
> I believe that in this case we should just have a warning in the kernel.
> The retry potentially work-around a transient issue and we do not hide any hardware
> issue at the same time. It seems an easy win-win solution.

I would agree about throwing a warning message in retry case.

Not sure how would it affect other i2c bus drivers using retries > 0. 
Retries might be pretty rare with i2c-imx but some other drivers set 
this to 5 for example. At least using _ratelimited printk is a must 
using this approach.

> 
>> Yeah fair point but on the other hand, goal of this patch would be to
>> improve robustness in case of otherwise good performing hardware. From user
>> perspective I just want it to work despite it retrying under the hood from
>> time to time. I think Francesco had the same idea.
> 
> Unfortunately I was missing the exact background that made us do this
> change, we just had it sitting in our fork for too long :-/
> This is one of the reason I gave up on it.
> 
> Quoting Uwe [1]
>> sometimes there is no practical way around such work arounds. I happens
>> from time to time that the reason for problem is known, but fixing the
>> hardware is no option, then you need such workrounds. (This applies to
>> both, retrying the transfers and resetting the bus.)

I wouldn't say this is exactly a workaround if "retries mechanism" is 
standard part of the i2c core. Other drivers use it as well. it is just 
a setting to improve bus robustness.

But OK, I guess we can live with this one-liner in the downstream kernel.

> 
> Francesco
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220715083400.q226rrwxsgt4eomp@pengutronix.de/
>