Re: [PATCH v2] tty: serial: qcom_geni_serial: Fix softlock

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:55 PM Ryan Case <ryandcase@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -465,9 +470,19 @@ static void qcom_geni_serial_console_write(struct console *co, const char *s,
>                 }
>                 writel_relaxed(M_CMD_CANCEL_EN, uport->membase +
>                                                         SE_GENI_M_IRQ_CLEAR);
> +       } else if ((geni_status & M_GENI_CMD_ACTIVE) && !port->tx_remaining) {
> +               /*
> +                * It seems we can interrupt existing transfers unless all data

s/It seems we can interrupt/It seems we can't interrupt/


> +static void qcom_geni_serial_handle_tx(struct uart_port *uport, bool done,
> +               bool active)
>  {
>         struct qcom_geni_serial_port *port = to_dev_port(uport, uport);
>         struct circ_buf *xmit = &uport->state->xmit;
>         size_t avail;
>         size_t remaining;
> +       size_t pending;
>         int i;
>         u32 status;
>         unsigned int chunk;
>         int tail;
> -       u32 irq_en;
>
> -       chunk = uart_circ_chars_pending(xmit);
>         status = readl_relaxed(uport->membase + SE_GENI_TX_FIFO_STATUS);
> -       /* Both FIFO and framework buffer are drained */
> -       if (!chunk && !status) {
> +
> +       /* Complete the current tx command before taking newly added data */
> +       if (active)
> +               pending = port->tx_remaining;

I almost feel like this should be:

if (port->tx_remaining)
  pending = port->tx_remaining

I could imagine active being false but "port->tx_remaining" being
non-zero if we happened to take a long time to handle the interrupt
for some reason.  Presumably you could simulator this and see what
breaks.  I think what would happen would be "pending" will be larger
than you expect and you could write a few extra bytes into the FIFO
causing it to go beyond the length of the transfer you setup.  ...so I
guess you'd drop some bytes?


If it's somehow important for "pending" to be 0 still when we're
active but port->tx_remaining is non-zero, then I guess you could also
write it as:

if (active || port->tx_remaining)
  pending = port->tx_remaining


Maybe I'm misunderstanding though.


-Doug