RE: [PATCH 2/3] aspeed-video: clear spurious interrupt bits unconditionally

[Ryan Chen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zev Weiss <zev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 11:54 AM
> To: Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx>; Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Jeffery
> <andrew@xxxxxxxx>; linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; OpenBMC Maillist
> <openbmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux ARM
> <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-aspeed
> <linux-aspeed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List
> <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] aspeed-video: clear spurious interrupt bits
> unconditionally
> 
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 08:53:33PM CST, Ryan Chen wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 9:07 AM
> >> To: Zev Weiss <zev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ryan Chen
> >> <ryan_chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> >> <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx>;
> >> linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; OpenBMC Maillist
> >> <openbmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux ARM
> >> <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-aspeed
> >> <linux-aspeed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List
> >> <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jae Hyun Yoo
> >> <jae.hyun.yoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] aspeed-video: clear spurious interrupt bits
> >> unconditionally
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 19:14, Zev Weiss <zev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:47:37PM CST, Joel Stanley wrote:
> >> > >On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 02:46, Zev Weiss <zev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Instead of testing and conditionally clearing them one by one,
> >> > >> we can instead just unconditionally clear them all at once.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Zev Weiss <zev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > >
> >> > >I had a poke at the assembly and it looks like GCC is clearing the
> >> > >bits unconditionally anyway, so removing the tests provides no change.
> >> > >
> >> > >Combining them is a good further optimization.
> >> > >
> >> > >Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > >
> >> > >A question unrelated to this patch: Do you know why the driver
> >> > >doesn't clear the status bits in the interrupt handler? I would
> >> > >expect it to write the value of sts back to the register to ack
> >> > >the pending interrupt.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > No, I don't, and I was sort of wondering the same thing actually --
> >> > I'm not deeply familiar with this hardware or driver though, so I
> >> > was a bit hesitant to start messing with things.  (Though maybe
> >> > doing so would address the "stickiness" aspect when it does
> >> > manifest.)  Perhaps Eddie or Jae can shed some light here?
> >>
> >> I think you're onto something here - this would be why the status
> >> bits seem to stick until the device is reset.
> >>
> >> Until Aspeed can clarify if this is a hardware or software issue, I
> >> suggest we ack the bits and log a message when we see them, instead
> >> of always ignoring them without taking any action.
> >>
> >> Can you write a patch that changes the interrupt handler to ack
> >> status bits as it handles each of them?
> >>
> >Hello Zev, before the patch, do you met issue with irq handler?
> >[continuous incoming?]
> >
> >In aspeed_video_irq handler should only handle enable interrupt expected.
> >   u32 sts = aspeed_video_read(video, VE_INTERRUPT_STATUS);
> > + sts &= aspeed_video_read(video, VE_INTERRUPT_CTRL);
> >
> >Ryan
> >
> 
> Hi Ryan,
> 
> Prior to any of these patches I encountered a problem pretty much exactly like
> what Jae described in his commit message in 65d270acb2d (but the kernel I
> was running included that patch).  Adding the diagnostic in patch #1 of this
> series showed that it was apparently the same problem, just with a different
> interrupt that Jae's patch didn't include.
> 
>  From what you wrote above, I gather that it is in fact expected for the
> hardware to assert interrupts that aren't enabled in VE_INTERRUPT_CTRL?
> If so, I guess something like that would obviate the need for both Jae's earlier
> patch and this whole series.
> 
Yes, I expected handle enabled in VE_INTERRUPT_CTRL. 

> I think the question Joel raised is somewhat independent though -- if the
> VE_INTERRUPT_STATUS register asserts interrupts we're not actually using,
> should the driver acknowledge them anyway or just leave them alone?
My opinion will keep them alone, ignore them.

> (Though if we're just going to ignore them anyway maybe it doesn't ultimately
> matter very much.)
> 
> 
> Zev