On 04.05.2019 02:58, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 04:01:16PM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 04:03:32AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
>>> External E-Mail
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:00:05AM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>>>> Hello Raag,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 01:06:48PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
>>>>> External E-Mail
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Performing i2c write operation while SDA or SCL line is held
>>>>> or grounded by slave device, we go into infinite at91_twi_write_next_byte
>>>>> loop with TXRDY interrupt spam.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but I am not sure to have the full picture, the controller is in
>>>> slave or master mode?
>>>>
>>>> SVREAD is only used in slave mode. When SVREAD is set, it means that a read
>>>> access is performed and your issue concerns the write operation.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Ludovic
>>>
>>> Yes, even though the datasheet suggests that SVREAD is irrelevant in master
>>> mode,
>>> TXRDY and SVREAD are the only ones being set in status register upon
>>> reproducing the issue.
>>> Couldn't think of a better way to handle such strange behaviour.
>>> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>>
>> I have the confirmation that you can't rely on the SVREAD flag when in
>> master mode. This flag should always have the same value.
>>
>> I am trying to understand what could lead to your situation. Can you
>> give me more details. What kind of device it is? What does lead to this
>> situation? Does it happen randomly or not?
>
> One of the sama5d2 based board I worked on, was having trouble complete its
> boot
> because of a faulty i2c device, which was randomly holding down the SDA line
> on i2c write operation, not allowing the controller to complete its
> transmission,
> causing a massive TXRDY interrupt spam, ultimately hanging the processor.
>
> Another strange observation was that SVREAD was being set in the status
> register
> along with TXRDY, every time I reproduced the issue.
> You can reproduce it by simply grounding the SDA line and performing i2c write
> on the bus.
>
> Note that NACK, LOCK or TXCOMP are never set as the transmission never
> completes.
> I'm not sure why slave bits are being set in master mode,
> but it's been working reliably for me.
>
> This patch doesn't recover the SDA line. It just prevents the processor from
> getting hanged in case of i2c bus lockup.
Hello,
I have noticed the same hanging at some points... In my case it is
because of this patch:
commit e8f39e9fc0e0b7bce24922da925af820bacb8ef8
Author: David Engraf <david.eng...@sysgo.com>
Date: Thu Apr 26 11:53:14 2018 +0200
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
index bfd1fdf..3f3e8b3 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
@@ -518,8 +518,16 @@ static irqreturn_t atmel_twi_interrupt(int irq,
void *dev_id)
* the RXRDY interrupt first in order to not keep garbage data
in the
* Receive Holding Register for the next transfer.
*/
- if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_RXRDY)
- at91_twi_read_next_byte(dev);
+ if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_RXRDY) {
+ /*
+ * Read all available bytes at once by polling RXRDY
usable w/
+ * and w/o FIFO. With FIFO enabled we could also read
RXFL and
+ * avoid polling RXRDY.
+ */
+ do {
+ at91_twi_read_next_byte(dev);
+ } while (at91_twi_read(dev, AT91_TWI_SR) & AT91_TWI_RXRDY);
+ }
In my opinion having a do/while with an exit condition relying solely on
a bit read from hardware is unacceptable in IRQ context - kernel can
hang here.
A timeout would be a solution...
For me, reverting this patch solves hanging issues.
Hope this helps,
Eugen
>
> Cheers,
> Raag
>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Ludovic
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Raag
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raagja...@gmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
>>>>> index 3f3e8b3..b2f5fdb 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
>>>>> @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@
>>>>> #define AT91_TWI_TXCOMP BIT(0) /* Transmission Complete */
>>>>> #define AT91_TWI_RXRDY BIT(1) /* Receive Holding Register
>>>>> Ready */
>>>>> #define AT91_TWI_TXRDY BIT(2) /* Transmit Holding Register
>>>>> Ready */
>>>>> +#define AT91_TWI_SVREAD BIT(3) /* Slave Read */
>>>>> #define AT91_TWI_OVRE BIT(6) /* Overrun Error */
>>>>> #define AT91_TWI_UNRE BIT(7) /* Underrun Error */
>>>>> #define AT91_TWI_NACK BIT(8) /* Not Acknowledged */
>>>>> @@ -571,7 +572,10 @@ static irqreturn_t atmel_twi_interrupt(int irq, void
>>>>> *dev_id)
>>>>> at91_disable_twi_interrupts(dev);
>>>>> complete(&dev->cmd_complete);
>>>>> } else if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_TXRDY) {
>>>>> - at91_twi_write_next_byte(dev);
>>>>> + if ((status & AT91_TWI_SVREAD) && (dev->buf_len == 0))
>>>>> + at91_twi_write(dev, AT91_TWI_IDR, AT91_TWI_TXRDY);
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + at91_twi_write_next_byte(dev);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> /* catch error flags */
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
>
