Re: [PATCH] cros_ec_i2c: prevent i2c timeout for EC_CMD_FLASH_ERASE

From: Doug Anderson
Date: Mon May 15 2017 - 12:17:48 EST


Hi,

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Wei-Ning Huang <wnhuang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Some EC chip has larger flash sector size which requires longer erase
> time. During erase the CPU is usually stalled and can't even respond to
> interrupts. We sleep a while to block any EC command from executing
> during the flash erase period.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei-Ning Huang <wnhuang@xxxxxxxxxx>

Slightly odd here that your SoB and author don't match. Patch is
listed as "From" your chromium address but SoB is your google one.


> ---
> drivers/mfd/cros_ec_i2c.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_i2c.c
> index 9f70de1e4c70..8f23d5a8cc5b 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_i2c.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,14 @@
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
>
> +/*
> + * Some EC chip has larger flash sector size which requires longer erase time.
> + * During erase the CPU is usually stalled and can't even respond to
> + * interrupts. We sleep for a while to block any EC command from executing
> + * during the flash erase period to prevent i2c timeout.
> + */
> +#define EC_FLASH_ERASE_DELAY_MS 5000
> +
> /**
> * Request format for protocol v3
> * byte 0 0xda (EC_COMMAND_PROTOCOL_3)
> @@ -177,6 +185,16 @@ static int cros_ec_pkt_xfer_i2c(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
>
> ret = ec_response->data_len;
>
> + /*
> + * If we get EC_RES_IN_PROGRESS for EC_CMD_FLASH_ERASE this means EC
> + * need a long time to erase flash, during flash erase CPU is stalled
> + * and can't respond to interrupts, so we sleep for a while to stop new
> + * EC commands from communicating with EC.
> + */
> + if (msg->command == EC_CMD_FLASH_ERASE &&
> + msg->result == EC_RES_IN_PROGRESS)
> + msleep(EC_FLASH_ERASE_DELAY_MS);
> +
> done:
> if (msg->command == EC_CMD_REBOOT_EC)
> msleep(EC_REBOOT_DELAY_MS);


As per review that took place off-list on crosreview.com/502840, this
seems pretty sane to me.

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>