Hi Masahiro, On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 02:26:34 +0900 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote:
> Hi Boris > > 2017-06-09 0:43 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon > <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com>: > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:58:00 +0900 > > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Boris, > >> > >> 2017-06-08 20:26 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon > >> <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com>: > >> > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 19:41:39 +0900 > >> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Boris, > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2017-06-08 16:12 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon > >> >> <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com>: > >> >> > Le Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:10:18 +0900, > >> >> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> a écrit : > >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi Boris, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2017-06-07 22:57 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon > >> >> >> <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com>: > >> >> >> > On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 20:52:19 +0900 > >> >> >> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> -/* > >> >> >> >> - * This is the interrupt service routine. It handles all > >> >> >> >> interrupts > >> >> >> >> - * sent to this device. Note that on CE4100, this is a shared > >> >> >> >> interrupt. > >> >> >> >> - */ > >> >> >> >> -static irqreturn_t denali_isr(int irq, void *dev_id) > >> >> >> >> +static uint32_t denali_wait_for_irq(struct denali_nand_info > >> >> >> >> *denali, > >> >> >> >> + uint32_t irq_mask) > >> >> >> >> { > >> >> >> >> - struct denali_nand_info *denali = dev_id; > >> >> >> >> + unsigned long time_left, flags; > >> >> >> >> uint32_t irq_status; > >> >> >> >> - irqreturn_t result = IRQ_NONE; > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> - spin_lock(&denali->irq_lock); > >> >> >> >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&denali->irq_lock, flags); > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> - /* check to see if a valid NAND chip has been selected. */ > >> >> >> >> - if (is_flash_bank_valid(denali->flash_bank)) { > >> >> >> >> - /* > >> >> >> >> - * check to see if controller generated the > >> >> >> >> interrupt, > >> >> >> >> - * since this is a shared interrupt > >> >> >> >> - */ > >> >> >> >> - irq_status = denali_irq_detected(denali); > >> >> >> >> - if (irq_status != 0) { > >> >> >> >> - /* handle interrupt */ > >> >> >> >> - /* first acknowledge it */ > >> >> >> >> - clear_interrupt(denali, irq_status); > >> >> >> >> - /* > >> >> >> >> - * store the status in the device context > >> >> >> >> for someone > >> >> >> >> - * to read > >> >> >> >> - */ > >> >> >> >> - denali->irq_status |= irq_status; > >> >> >> >> - /* notify anyone who cares that it happened > >> >> >> >> */ > >> >> >> >> - complete(&denali->complete); > >> >> >> >> - /* tell the OS that we've handled this */ > >> >> >> >> - result = IRQ_HANDLED; > >> >> >> >> - } > >> >> >> >> + irq_status = denali->irq_status; > >> >> >> >> + > >> >> >> >> + if (irq_mask & irq_status) { > >> >> >> >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&denali->irq_lock, flags); > >> >> >> >> + return irq_status; > >> >> >> >> } > >> >> >> >> - spin_unlock(&denali->irq_lock); > >> >> >> >> - return result; > >> >> >> >> + > >> >> >> >> + denali->irq_mask = irq_mask; > >> >> >> >> + reinit_completion(&denali->complete); > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > These 2 instructions should be done before calling > >> >> >> > denali_wait_for_irq() (for example in denali_reset_irq()), > >> >> >> > otherwise > >> >> >> > you might loose events if they happen between your irq_status read > >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> > the reinit_completion() call. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> denali->irq_lock avoids a race between denali_isr() and > >> >> >> denali_wait_for_irq(). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The line > >> >> >> denali->irq_status |= irq_status; > >> >> >> in denali_isr() accumulates all events that have happened > >> >> >> since denali_reset_irq(). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If the interested IRQs have already happened > >> >> >> before denali_wait_for_irq(), it just return immediately > >> >> >> without using completion. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I do not mind adding a comment like below > >> >> >> if you think my intention is unclear, though. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> /* Return immediately if interested IRQs have already > >> >> >> happend. */ > >> >> >> if (irq_mask & irq_status) { > >> >> >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&denali->irq_lock, flags); > >> >> >> return irq_status; > >> >> >> } > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > My bad, I didn't notice you were releasing the lock after calling > >> >> > reinit_completion(). I still find this solution more complex than my > >> >> > proposal, but I don't care that much. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> At first, I implemented exactly like you suggested; > >> >> denali->irq_mask = irq_mask; > >> >> reinit_completion(&denali->complete) > >> >> in denali_reset_irq(). > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> IIRC, things were like this. > >> >> > >> >> Some time later, you memtioned to use ->cmd_ctrl > >> >> instead of ->cmdfunc. > >> >> > >> >> Then I had a problem when I needed to implement > >> >> denali_check_irq() in > >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/772395/ > >> >> > >> >> denali_wait_for_irq() is blocked until interested IRQ happens. > >> >> but ->dev_ready() hook should not be blocked. > >> >> It should return if R/B# transition has happened or not. > >> > > >> > Nope, it should return whether the NAND is ready or not, not whether a > >> > busy -> ready transition occurred or not. It's typically done by > >> > reading the NAND STATUS register or by checking the R/B pin status. > >> > >> Checking the R/B pin is probably impossible unless > >> the pin is changed into a GPIO port. > >> > >> I also considered NAND_CMD_STATUS, but > >> I can not recall why I chose the current approach. > >> Perhaps I thought returning detected IRQ > >> is faster than accessing the chip for NAND_CMD_STATUS. > >> > >> I can try NAND_CMD_STATUS approach if you like. > > > > Depends what you're trying to do. IIUC, you use denali_wait_for_irq() > > inside your ->reset()/->read/write_{page,oob}[_raw]() methods, which is > > perfectly fine (assuming CUSTOM_PAGE_ACCESS is set) since these hooks > > are expected to wait for chip readiness before returning. > > > > You could also implement ->waitfunc() using denali_wait_for_irq() if > > you're able to detect R/B transitions, > > R/B transition will set INTR__INT_ACT interrupt. > > I think it is easy in my implementation of denali_wait_for_irq(), > like > > denali_wait_for_irq(denali, INTR__INT_ACT); > > > > But, you are suggesting me to change it. This is clearly not a hard requirement, I was just curious and wanted to understand why you had such a convoluted interrupt handling design. I think I now understand why (see below). > In your way, you give IRQ masks to denali_reset_irq(), like > denali_reset_irq(denali, INTR__ERASE_COMP | INTR__ERASE_FAIL); > > Then, we have no room of IRQ bit in denali_wait_for_irq(). > > How will you implement it? It should be pretty easy: just make sure you reset the INTR__INT_ACT status flag before sending a command (->cmd_ctrl()), and then unmask the INTR__INT_ACT in denali_waitfunc() just before calling denali_wait_for_irqs(). This should guarantee that you don't loose any events, while keeping the logic rather simple. > > > > but I'm not sure it's worth it, > > because you overload almost all the methods using this hook (the only > > one remaining is ->onfi_set_features(), and using STATUS polling should > > not be an issue in this case). > > > > Implementing ->dev_ready() is not necessary. When not provided, the > > core falls back to STATUS polling and you seem to support > > NAND_CMD_STATUS in denali_cmdfunc(). Note that even if it's not fully > > reliable in the current driver, you're switching to ->cmd_ctrl() at the > > end of the series anyway, so we should be good after that. > > ->dev_ready() is optional, but we may end up with waiting more than needed. > > case NAND_CMD_RESET: > if (chip->dev_ready) > break; > udelay(chip->chip_delay); > > > chip->chip_delay is probably set large enough, so this is not optimal. That's true, this udelay should not be needed in your case. > > > If I add something more, the following two bugs were found by > denali_dev_ready(). > > commit 3158fa0e739615769cc047d2428f30f4c3b6640e > commit c5d664aa5a4c4b257a54eb35045031630d105f49 > > > If NAND core is fine, denali_dev_ready() works fine too. > > If not, it is a sign of bug of nand_command(_lp). > This is contributing to the core improvement. > Had a second look at denali_dev_ready() and it seems to do the right thing, so let's keep it like that. > > >> > >> IIRC, I was thinking like this: > >> > >> One IRQ line may be shared among multiple hardware including Denali. > >> denali_pci may do this. > >> > >> The Denali IRQ handler need to check irq status > >> because it should return IRQ_HANDLED if the event comes from Denali > >> controller. > >> Otherwise, the event comes from different hardware, so > >> Denali IRQ handler should return IRQ_NONE. > > > > Correct. > > > >> > >> wait_for_completion_timeout() may bail out with timeout error, > >> then proceed to denali_reset_irq() for the next operation. > > > > Before calling denali_reset_irq() you should re-mask the irqs you > > unmasked in #1. Actually, calling denali_reset_irq() after > > wait_for_completion_timeout() is not even needed here because you'll > > clear pending irqs before launching the next NAND command. > > > >> Afterwards, the event actually may happen, and invoke IRQ handler. > > > > Not if you masked IRQs after wait_for_completion_timeout() returned. > > > wait_for_completion_timeout(&denali->complete, > msecs_to_jiffies(1000)); > <<< WHAT IF IRQ EVENT HAPPENS HERE ? >>> > iowrite32(0, denali->flash_reg + INTR_EN(denali->flash_bank)); You're right, the write to INTR_EN() should be protected by a spin_lock_irqsave to prevent concurrency between the irq handler and the thread executing this function (and we should also take the lock from the irq handler when doing status & mask). I didn't consider the SMP case when coding this approach (one CPU can handle the interrupt while the other one continues executing this function after the timeout). > > > > > Also, you ignore the return value of wait_for_completion_timeout(), > then drop my precious error message() > > dev_err(denali->dev, "timeout while waiting for irq 0x%x\n", > denali->irq_mask) Timeout can be detected by testing the status: if none of the flags we were waiting for are set this is a timeout. Maybe I forgot to add this message back though. > > > > > Here is a patch to show you what I had in mind [1] (it applies on top > > of this patch). AFAICT, there's no races, no interrupt loss, and you > > get rid of the ->irq_mask/status/lock fields. > > > > [1]http://code.bulix.org/fufia6-145571 > > > > > Problem Scenario A > [1] wait_for_completion_timeout() exits with timeout. > [2] IRQ happens and denali_isr() is invoked > [3] iowrite32(0, denali->flash_reg + INTR_EN(denali->flash_bank)); > [4] status = ioread32(denali->flash_reg + INTR_STATUS(bank)) & > ioread32(denali->flash_reg + INTR_EN(bank)); > (status is set to 0 because INTR_EN(bank) is now 0) > [5] return IRQ_NONE; > [6] kernel complains "irq *: nobody cared" Okay, this is the part I initially misunderstood. Your goal is to never ever return IRQ_NONE, while I was accepting to rarely return IRQ_NONE in the unlikely interrupt-just-after-timeout case. Note that the kernel irq infrastructure accepts rare occurrences or IRQ_NONE [1]. > > > > Problem Scenario B (unlikely to happen, though) > [1] wait_for_completion_timeout() exits with timeout. > [2] IRQ happens and denali_isr() is invoked > [3] iowrite32(0, denali->flash_reg + INTR_EN(denali->flash_bank)); > [4] chip->select_chip(mtd, -1) > [5] denali->flash_bank = -1 > [6] status = ioread32(denali->flash_reg + INTR_STATUS(bank)) & > ioread32(denali->flash_reg + INTR_EN(bank)); > ( access to non-existing INTR_STATUS(-1) ) Wrapping the write INTR_EN() into a spin_lock_irqsave/unlock_irqrestore() section and doing the same in the interrupt handler (without irqsave/restore) should solve the problem. This being said, I'm not asking you to change the code, I just wanted to understand why you were doing it like that. Thanks, Boris [1]http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/irq/spurious.c#L407