Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: aspeed: Handle master/slave combined irq events properly
From: Jae Hyun Yoo
Date: Wed Aug 01 2018 - 14:08:49 EST
Hi Brendan,
Thanks a lot for the review. Please see my inline answers.
On 7/31/2018 11:44 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:31 AM Jae Hyun Yoo
<jae.hyun.yoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In most of cases, interrupt bits are set one by one but there are
also a lot of other cases that Aspeed I2C IP sends multiple
interrupt bits with combining master and slave events using a
single interrupt call. It happens much more in multi-master
environment than single-master. For an example, when master is
waiting for a NORMAL_STOP interrupt in its MASTER_STOP state,
SLAVE_MATCH and RX_DONE interrupts could come along with the
NORMAL_STOP in case of an another master immediately sends data
just after acquiring the bus. In this case, the NORMAL_STOP
interrupt should be handled by master_irq and the SLAVE_MATCH and
RX_DONE interrupts should be handled by slave_irq. This commit
modifies irq hadling logic to handle the master/slave combined
events properly.
Changes since v1:
- Fixed a grammer issue in commit message.
- Added a missing line feed character into a message printing.
This should not go in the commit log. Please move this to the comment section.
Oops! I'll move it to the comment section. Thanks!
Signed-off-by: Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c | 135 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
index efb89422d496..75431e305073 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
@@ -82,6 +82,11 @@
#define ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE BIT(2)
#define ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK BIT(1)
#define ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK BIT(0)
+#define ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_ERRORS \
+ (ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_SDA_DL_TIMEOUT | \
+ ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_SCL_TIMEOUT | \
+ ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_ABNORMAL | \
+ ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_ARBIT_LOSS)
#define ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_ALL \
(ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_SDA_DL_TIMEOUT | \
ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_BUS_RECOVER_DONE | \
@@ -150,6 +155,7 @@ struct aspeed_i2c_bus {
int cmd_err;
/* Protected only by i2c_lock_bus */
int master_xfer_result;
+ u32 irq_status;
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE)
struct i2c_client *slave;
enum aspeed_i2c_slave_state slave_state;
@@ -229,36 +235,30 @@ static int aspeed_i2c_recover_bus(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE)
static bool aspeed_i2c_slave_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
I think it will be cleaner if both this and aspeed_i2c_master_irq return the
status_ack; that way you will not have to add the irq_status field to the
struct.
Yes, that would be better. I'll make slave_irq and master_irq return the
status_ack.
{
- u32 command, irq_status, status_ack = 0;
+ u32 command, status_ack = 0;
struct i2c_client *slave = bus->slave;
- bool irq_handled = true;
u8 value;
- if (!slave) {
- irq_handled = false;
- goto out;
- }
+ if (!slave)
+ return false;
command = readl(bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_CMD_REG);
- irq_status = readl(bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
/* Slave was requested, restart state machine. */
- if (irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_SLAVE_MATCH) {
+ if (bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_SLAVE_MATCH) {
status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_SLAVE_MATCH;
bus->slave_state = ASPEED_I2C_SLAVE_START;
}
/* Slave is not currently active, irq was for someone else. */
- if (bus->slave_state == ASPEED_I2C_SLAVE_STOP) {
- irq_handled = false;
- goto out;
- }
+ if (bus->slave_state == ASPEED_I2C_SLAVE_STOP)
+ return false;
dev_dbg(bus->dev, "slave irq status 0x%08x, cmd 0x%08x\n",
- irq_status, command);
+ bus->irq_status, command);
/* Slave was sent something. */
- if (irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE) {
+ if (bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE) {
value = readl(bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_BYTE_BUF_REG) >> 8;
/* Handle address frame. */
if (bus->slave_state == ASPEED_I2C_SLAVE_START) {
@@ -273,28 +273,29 @@ static bool aspeed_i2c_slave_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
}
/* Slave was asked to stop. */
- if (irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_NORMAL_STOP) {
+ if (bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_NORMAL_STOP) {
status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_NORMAL_STOP;
bus->slave_state = ASPEED_I2C_SLAVE_STOP;
}
- if (irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK) {
+ if (bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK) {
status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK;
bus->slave_state = ASPEED_I2C_SLAVE_STOP;
}
+ if (bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK) {
+ status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK;
+ }
switch (bus->slave_state) {
case ASPEED_I2C_SLAVE_READ_REQUESTED:
- if (irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK)
+ if (bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK)
dev_err(bus->dev, "Unexpected ACK on read request.\n");
bus->slave_state = ASPEED_I2C_SLAVE_READ_PROCESSED;
-
i2c_slave_event(slave, I2C_SLAVE_READ_REQUESTED, &value);
writel(value, bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_BYTE_BUF_REG);
writel(ASPEED_I2CD_S_TX_CMD, bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_CMD_REG);
break;
case ASPEED_I2C_SLAVE_READ_PROCESSED:
- status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK;
- if (!(irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK))
+ if (!(bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK))
dev_err(bus->dev,
"Expected ACK after processed read.\n");
i2c_slave_event(slave, I2C_SLAVE_READ_PROCESSED, &value);
@@ -317,14 +318,8 @@ static bool aspeed_i2c_slave_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
break;
}
- if (status_ack != irq_status)
- dev_err(bus->dev,
- "irq handled != irq. expected %x, but was %x\n",
- irq_status, status_ack);
- writel(status_ack, bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
-
-out:
- return irq_handled;
+ bus->irq_status ^= status_ack;
Here and elsewhere, you are trying to mask out the bits you handled, right?
Please use `&= ~status_ack;` instead.
Right. I'll fix it as you suggested.
+ return !bus->irq_status;
}
#endif /* CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE */
@@ -382,19 +377,19 @@ static int aspeed_i2c_is_irq_error(u32 irq_status)
static bool aspeed_i2c_master_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
{
- u32 irq_status, status_ack = 0, command = 0;
+ u32 status_ack = 0, command = 0;
struct i2c_msg *msg;
u8 recv_byte;
int ret;
- irq_status = readl(bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
- /* Ack all interrupt bits. */
- writel(irq_status, bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
-
- if (irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_BUS_RECOVER_DONE) {
+ if (bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_BUS_RECOVER_DONE) {
bus->master_state = ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE;
status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_BUS_RECOVER_DONE;
goto out_complete;
+ } else {
+ /* Master is not currently active, irq was for someone else. */
+ if (bus->master_state == ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE)
+ goto out_no_complete;
}
/*
@@ -402,20 +397,23 @@ static bool aspeed_i2c_master_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
* should clear the command queue effectively taking us back to the
* INACTIVE state.
*/
- ret = aspeed_i2c_is_irq_error(irq_status);
- if (ret < 0) {
+ ret = aspeed_i2c_is_irq_error(bus->irq_status);
+ if (ret) {
dev_dbg(bus->dev, "received error interrupt: 0x%08x\n",
- irq_status);
+ bus->irq_status);
bus->cmd_err = ret;
bus->master_state = ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE;
+ status_ack |= (bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_ERRORS);
ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_ERRORS only occur in master mode? Please make that more clear
in the name.
Yes, that should be handled in master mode. If the errors detected in a
peer master operation, the peer master has a responsibility to recover
bus. I'll change the name to ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_MASTER_ERRORS.
Actually, Aspeed AST2500 I2C IP provides slave timeout error detection
which can be enabled by setting a bit 15 of the Interrupt Control
Register (I2CD0C), and we can check the error through Interrupt Status
Register (I2CD10) bit 15, so that we can add an error handling logic
into slave_irq. I'll submit an additional patch later for it.
goto out_complete;
}
/* We are in an invalid state; reset bus to a known state. */
if (!bus->msgs) {
- dev_err(bus->dev, "bus in unknown state\n");
+ dev_err(bus->dev, "bus in unknown state irq_status: 0x%x\n",
+ bus->irq_status);
bus->cmd_err = -EIO;
- if (bus->master_state != ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_STOP)
+ if (bus->master_state != ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_STOP &&
+ bus->master_state != ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE)
aspeed_i2c_do_stop(bus);
goto out_no_complete;
}
@@ -427,7 +425,13 @@ static bool aspeed_i2c_master_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
* then update the state and handle the new state below.
*/
if (bus->master_state == ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_START) {
- if (unlikely(!(irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK))) {
+ if (unlikely(!(bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK))) {
+ if (unlikely(!(bus->irq_status &
+ ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK))) {
+ bus->cmd_err = -ENXIO;
+ bus->master_state = ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE;
+ goto out_complete;
+ }
pr_devel("no slave present at %02x\n", msg->addr);
status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK;
bus->cmd_err = -ENXIO;
@@ -447,11 +451,12 @@ static bool aspeed_i2c_master_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
switch (bus->master_state) {
case ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_TX:
- if (unlikely(irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK)) {
+ if (unlikely(bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK)) {
dev_dbg(bus->dev, "slave NACKed TX\n");
status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK;
goto error_and_stop;
- } else if (unlikely(!(irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK))) {
+ } else if (unlikely(!(bus->irq_status &
+ ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK))) {
dev_err(bus->dev, "slave failed to ACK TX\n");
goto error_and_stop;
}
@@ -470,11 +475,11 @@ static bool aspeed_i2c_master_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
goto out_no_complete;
case ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_RX_FIRST:
/* RX may not have completed yet (only address cycle) */
- if (!(irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE))
+ if (!(bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE))
goto out_no_complete;
/* fallthrough intended */
case ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_RX:
- if (unlikely(!(irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE))) {
+ if (unlikely(!(bus->irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE))) {
dev_err(bus->dev, "master failed to RX\n");
goto error_and_stop;
}
@@ -505,8 +510,11 @@ static bool aspeed_i2c_master_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
}
goto out_no_complete;
case ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_STOP:
- if (unlikely(!(irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_NORMAL_STOP))) {
- dev_err(bus->dev, "master failed to STOP\n");
+ if (unlikely(!(bus->irq_status &
+ ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_NORMAL_STOP))) {
+ dev_err(bus->dev,
+ "master failed to STOP irq_status:0x%x\n",
+ bus->irq_status);
bus->cmd_err = -EIO;
/* Do not STOP as we have already tried. */
} else {
@@ -518,7 +526,7 @@ static bool aspeed_i2c_master_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
case ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE:
dev_err(bus->dev,
"master received interrupt 0x%08x, but is inactive\n",
- irq_status);
+ bus->irq_status);
bus->cmd_err = -EIO;
/* Do not STOP as we should be inactive. */
goto out_complete;
@@ -540,33 +548,40 @@ static bool aspeed_i2c_master_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus)
bus->master_xfer_result = bus->msgs_index + 1;
complete(&bus->cmd_complete);
out_no_complete:
- if (irq_status != status_ack)
- dev_err(bus->dev,
- "irq handled != irq. expected 0x%08x, but was 0x%08x\n",
- irq_status, status_ack);
- return !!irq_status;
+ bus->irq_status ^= status_ack;
+ return !bus->irq_status;
}
static irqreturn_t aspeed_i2c_bus_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
{
struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus = dev_id;
- bool ret;
+ u32 irq_received;
spin_lock(&bus->lock);
+ irq_received = readl(bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
+ bus->irq_status = irq_received;
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE)
- if (aspeed_i2c_slave_irq(bus)) {
- dev_dbg(bus->dev, "irq handled by slave.\n");
- ret = true;
- goto out;
+ if (bus->master_state != ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE) {
It might be nice to have a comment here about why you might try both handlers.
Okay. Will add a comment here.
+ if (!aspeed_i2c_master_irq(bus))
+ aspeed_i2c_slave_irq(bus);
+ } else {
+ if (!aspeed_i2c_slave_irq(bus))
+ aspeed_i2c_master_irq(bus);
}
+#else
+ aspeed_i2c_master_irq(bus);
#endif /* CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE */
- ret = aspeed_i2c_master_irq(bus);
+ if (bus->irq_status)
+ dev_err(bus->dev,
+ "irq handled != irq. expected 0x%08x, but was 0x%08x\n",
+ irq_received, irq_received ^ bus->irq_status);
-out:
+ /* Ack all interrupt bits. */
+ writel(irq_received, bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
You should probably ACK as soon as you read the bits.
In my experiments, doing ACK at the end of irq reduces the possibility
of master/slave combining irq calls that I previously explained.
spin_unlock(&bus->lock);
- return ret ? IRQ_HANDLED : IRQ_NONE;
+ return bus->irq_status ? IRQ_NONE : IRQ_HANDLED;
}
static int aspeed_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
--
2.18.0