Re: [PATCH v1 5/6] i2c: iproc: handle master read request

[Ray Jui]

On 10/13/2020 10:12 PM, Rayagonda Kokatanur wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 8:50 AM Dhananjay Phadke
> <dphadke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dphadke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
>     On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:52:53 +0530, Rayagonda Kokatanur wrote:
>     > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
>     > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
>     >
>     > -             } else if (status & BIT(IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT)) {
>     > -                     /* Start of SMBUS for Master Read */
>     > +                                     I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_REQUESTED,
>     &rx_data);
>     > +                     iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd = true;
>     > +                     iproc_i2c->slave_read_complete = false;
>     > +             } else if (rx_status == I2C_SLAVE_RX_DATA &&
>     > +                        iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd) {
>     > +                     /* Middle of SMBUS Master write */
>     >                       i2c_slave_event(iproc_i2c->slave,
>     > -                                     I2C_SLAVE_READ_REQUESTED,
>     &value);
>     > -                     iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, S_TX_OFFSET, value);
>     > +                                     I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED,
>     &rx_data);
>     > +             } else if (rx_status == I2C_SLAVE_RX_END &&
>     > +                        iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd) {
>     > +                     /* End of SMBUS Master write */
>     > +                     if (iproc_i2c->slave_rx_only)
>     > +                             i2c_slave_event(iproc_i2c->slave,
>     > +                                           
>      I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED,
>     > +                                             &rx_data);
>     > +
>     > +                     i2c_slave_event(iproc_i2c->slave,
>     I2C_SLAVE_STOP,
>     > +                                     &rx_data);
>     > +             } else if (rx_status == I2C_SLAVE_RX_FIFO_EMPTY) {
>     > +                     iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd = false;
>     > +                     iproc_i2c->slave_read_complete = true;
>     > +                     break;
>     > +             }
>     > 
>     > -                     val = BIT(S_CMD_START_BUSY_SHIFT);
>     > -                     iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, S_CMD_OFFSET, val);
>     > +             rx_bytes++;
> 
>     rx_bytes should be incremented only along with
>     I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED event?
> 
> 
> It should be incremented in both I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_REQUESTED and  
> I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED cases because in both case it is reading valid
> bytes from rx fifo.
> 
> 
>     >
>     > +static bool bcm_iproc_i2c_slave_isr(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev
>     *iproc_i2c,
>     > +                                 u32 status)
>     > +{
>     > +     u32 val;
>     > +     u8 value;
>     > +
>     > +     /*
>     > +      * Slave events in case of master-write, master-write-read and,
>     > +      * master-read
>     > +      *
>     > +      * Master-write     : only IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT event
>     > +      * Master-write-read: both IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT and
>     IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT
>     > +      *                    events
>     > +      * Master-read      : both IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT and
>     IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT
>     > +      *                    events or only IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT
>     > +      */
>     > +     if (status & BIT(IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT) ||
>     > +         status & BIT(IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT)) {
>     > +             /* disable slave interrupts */
>     > +             val = iproc_i2c_rd_reg(iproc_i2c, IE_OFFSET);
>     > +             val &= ~iproc_i2c->slave_int_mask;
>     > +             iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, IE_OFFSET, val);
>     > +
>     > +             if (status & BIT(IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT))
>     > +                     /* Master-write-read request */
>     > +                     iproc_i2c->slave_rx_only = false;
>     > +             else
>     > +                     /* Master-write request only */
>     > +                     iproc_i2c->slave_rx_only = true;
>     > +
>     > +             /* schedule tasklet to read data later */
>     > +             tasklet_schedule(&iproc_i2c->slave_rx_tasklet);
>     > +
>     > +             /* clear only IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT interrupt */
>     > +             iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, IS_OFFSET,
>     > +                              BIT(IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT));
>     >
> 
>     Both tasklet and isr are writing to status (IS_OFFSET) reg.
> 
> 
> Yes this is required.
> 
> For ex, If IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT interrupt, this should be cleared once
> the driver completes reading all data from rx fifo.
> After this the driver can start sending data to master.
>  

If both tasklet and isr are accessing the IS_OFFSET register, don't you
need lock protection against race condition? That is, ISR can interrupt
tasklet.

> 
> 
>     The tasklet seems to be batching up rx fifo reads because of
>     time-sensitive
>     Master-write-read transaction? Linux I2C framework is byte interface
>     anyway.
>     Can the need to batch reads be avoided by setting slave rx threshold for
>     interrupt (S_FIFO_RX_THLD) to 1-byte?
> 
> 
> To process more data with a single interrupt we are batching up rx fifo
> reads.
> This will reduce the number of interrupts.
> 
> Also to avoid tasklet running more time (20us) we have a threshold of 10
> bytes for batching read.
> This is a better/optimised approach than reading single byte data per
> interrupt.
> 
> 
>     Also, wouldn't tasklets be susceptible to other interrupts? If fifo
>     reads
>     have to be batched up, can it be changed to threaded irq?
> 
> 
> tasklets have higher priority than threaded irq, since i2c is time
> sensitive so using a tasklet is preferred over threaded irq.
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature