On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 08:32:25AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On 0909, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > Hi Mani,
> >
> > Thanks for the review!
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 08:47:48PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > Hi Cristi,
> > >
> > > On 0908, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > > > Atomic transfers are required to properly power off a machine through
> > > > an I2C controlled PMIC, such as the Actions Semi ATC260x series.
> > > >
> > > > System shutdown may happen with interrupts being disabled and, as a
> > > > consequence, the kernel may hang if the driver does not support atomic
> > > > transfers.
> > > >
> > > > This functionality is essentially implemented by polling the FIFO
> > > > Status register until either Command Execute Completed or NACK Error
> > > > bits are set.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the patch! I just have couple of minor comments and other
> > > than that it looks good to me.
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocal...@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - Dropped unused return codes from owl_i2c_xfer_data(), per Mani's
> > > > review
> > > > - Rebased patch on v5.9-rc4
> > > >
> > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-owl.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > > 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-owl.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-owl.c
> > > > index 672f1f239bd6..29605257831f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-owl.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-owl.c
> > > > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> > > > #include <linux/i2c.h>
> > > > #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > > > #include <linux/io.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/iopoll.h>
> > > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > #include <linux/of_device.h>
> > > >
> > > > @@ -76,6 +77,7 @@
> > > > #define OWL_I2C_FIFOCTL_TFR BIT(2)
> > > >
> > > > /* I2Cc_FIFOSTAT Bit Mask */
> > > > +#define OWL_I2C_FIFOSTAT_CECB BIT(0)
> > > > #define OWL_I2C_FIFOSTAT_RNB BIT(1)
> > > > #define OWL_I2C_FIFOSTAT_RFE BIT(2)
> > > > #define OWL_I2C_FIFOSTAT_TFF BIT(5)
> > > > @@ -83,7 +85,8 @@
> > > > #define OWL_I2C_FIFOSTAT_RFD GENMASK(15, 8)
> > > >
> > > > /* I2C bus timeout */
> > > > -#define OWL_I2C_TIMEOUT msecs_to_jiffies(4 * 1000)
> > > > +#define OWL_I2C_TIMEOUT_MS (4 * 1000)
> > > > +#define OWL_I2C_TIMEOUT
> > > > msecs_to_jiffies(OWL_I2C_TIMEOUT_MS)
> > > >
> > > > #define OWL_I2C_MAX_RETRIES 50
> > > >
> > > > @@ -161,29 +164,25 @@ static void owl_i2c_set_freq(struct owl_i2c_dev
> > > > *i2c_dev)
> > > > writel(OWL_I2C_DIV_FACTOR(val), i2c_dev->base +
> > > > OWL_I2C_REG_CLKDIV);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -static irqreturn_t owl_i2c_interrupt(int irq, void *_dev)
> > > > +static void owl_i2c_xfer_data(struct owl_i2c_dev *i2c_dev)
> > > > {
> > > > - struct owl_i2c_dev *i2c_dev = _dev;
> > > > struct i2c_msg *msg = i2c_dev->msg;
> > > > - unsigned long flags;
> > > > unsigned int stat, fifostat;
> > > >
> > > > - spin_lock_irqsave(&i2c_dev->lock, flags);
> > > > -
> > > > i2c_dev->err = 0;
> > > >
> > > > /* Handle NACK from slave */
> > > > fifostat = readl(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_FIFOSTAT);
> > > > if (fifostat & OWL_I2C_FIFOSTAT_RNB) {
> > > > i2c_dev->err = -ENXIO;
> > > > - goto stop;
> > > > + return;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /* Handle bus error */
> > > > stat = readl(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_STAT);
> > > > if (stat & OWL_I2C_STAT_BEB) {
> > > > i2c_dev->err = -EIO;
> > > > - goto stop;
> > > > + return;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /* Handle FIFO read */
> > > > @@ -196,18 +195,28 @@ static irqreturn_t owl_i2c_interrupt(int irq,
> > > > void *_dev)
> > > > } else {
> > > > /* Handle the remaining bytes which were not sent */
> > > > while (!(readl(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_FIFOSTAT) &
> > > > - OWL_I2C_FIFOSTAT_TFF) && i2c_dev->msg_ptr <
> > > > msg->len) {
> > > > + OWL_I2C_FIFOSTAT_TFF) && i2c_dev->msg_ptr <
> > > > msg->len) {
> > >
> > > Spurious change?
> >
> > I have just fixed a small indentation issue (removed extra space char
> > in front of OWL_I2C...). I will revert it if you think it's not the right
> > context for doing this (located ~10 lines bellow the previous edit).
> >
>
> The extra space was there to align with the starting of 'readl', so please
> keep
> it as it is.
Right, sorry! I aligned it with the other 'readl' a few lines above and
I missed the extra offset caused by the '!' operator.
> > > > writel(msg->buf[i2c_dev->msg_ptr++],
> > > > i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_TXDAT);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static irqreturn_t owl_i2c_interrupt(int irq, void *_dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct owl_i2c_dev *i2c_dev = _dev;
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&i2c_dev->lock, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > + owl_i2c_xfer_data(i2c_dev);
> > > >
> > > > -stop:
> > > > /* Clear pending interrupts */
> > > > owl_i2c_update_reg(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_STAT,
> > > > OWL_I2C_STAT_IRQP, true);
> > > >
> > > > complete_all(&i2c_dev->msg_complete);
> > > > +
> > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i2c_dev->lock, flags);
> > > >
> > > > return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > > > @@ -235,8 +244,8 @@ static int owl_i2c_check_bus_busy(struct
> > > > i2c_adapter *adap)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -static int owl_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct
> > > > i2c_msg *msgs,
> > > > - int num)
> > > > +static int owl_i2c_xfer_common(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct
> > > > i2c_msg *msgs,
> > > > + int num, bool atomic)
> > > > {
> > > > struct owl_i2c_dev *i2c_dev = i2c_get_adapdata(adap);
> > > > struct i2c_msg *msg;
> > > > @@ -280,11 +289,12 @@ static int owl_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter
> > > > *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs,
> > > > goto err_exit;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - reinit_completion(&i2c_dev->msg_complete);
> > > > + if (!atomic)
> > > > + reinit_completion(&i2c_dev->msg_complete);
> > > >
> > > > - /* Enable I2C controller interrupt */
> > > > + /* Enable/disable I2C controller interrupt */
> > > > owl_i2c_update_reg(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_CTL,
> > > > - OWL_I2C_CTL_IRQE, true);
> > > > + OWL_I2C_CTL_IRQE, !atomic);
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * Select: FIFO enable, Master mode, Stop enable, Data count
> > > > enable,
> > > > @@ -352,20 +362,33 @@ static int owl_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter
> > > > *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs,
> > > >
> > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i2c_dev->lock, flags);
> > > >
> > > > - time_left = wait_for_completion_timeout(&i2c_dev->msg_complete,
> > > > - adap->timeout);
> > > > + if (atomic) {
> > > > + /* Wait for Command Execute Completed or NACK Error
> > > > bits */
> > > > + ret = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(i2c_dev->base +
> > > > OWL_I2C_REG_FIFOSTAT,
> > > > + val, val &
> > > > (OWL_I2C_FIFOSTAT_CECB |
> > > > +
> > > > OWL_I2C_FIFOSTAT_RNB),
> > > > + 10, OWL_I2C_TIMEOUT_MS
> > > > * 1000);
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + time_left =
> > > > wait_for_completion_timeout(&i2c_dev->msg_complete,
> > > > + adap->timeout);
> > > > + if (!time_left)
> > > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&i2c_dev->lock, flags);
> > > > - if (time_left == 0) {
> > > > +
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > dev_err(&adap->dev, "Transaction timed out\n");
> > > > /* Send stop condition and release the bus */
> > > > owl_i2c_update_reg(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_CTL,
> > > > OWL_I2C_CTL_GBCC_STOP |
> > > > OWL_I2C_CTL_RB,
> > > > true);
> > > > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > goto err_exit;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + if (atomic)
> > > > + owl_i2c_xfer_data(i2c_dev);
> > >
> > > You are not clearing the pending interrupts here.
> >
> > I assumed this is not needed for atomic contexts since the controller
> > interrupt is disabled (please see the comment above: Enable/disable I2C
> > controller interrupt).
> >
> > Otherwise I will simply move the clear pending interrupts code from
> > owl_i2c_interrupt() to owl_i2c_xfer_data().
> >
>
> Hmm. My intention was to say that we are not clearing the error bits when they
> happen but I misinterpreted that setting IRQP will take care of that but it
> doesn't.
>
> So I think you should submit a patch which writes to RNB and BEB fields when
> they are set (writing 1 will clear the interrupts) and ignore my previous
> comment.
Sure, I can handle this. I assume this should be a separate patch, to
be applied before the current patch. Should I submit a patch series
instead?
Thanks,
Cristi
> Thanks,
> Mani
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mani
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > ret = i2c_dev->err < 0 ? i2c_dev->err : num;
> > > >
> > > > err_exit:
> > > > @@ -379,9 +402,22 @@ static int owl_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter
> > > > *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs,
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static int owl_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs,
> > > > + int num)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return owl_i2c_xfer_common(adap, msgs, num, false);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int owl_i2c_xfer_atomic(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
> > > > + struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return owl_i2c_xfer_common(adap, msgs, num, true);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static const struct i2c_algorithm owl_i2c_algorithm = {
> > > > - .master_xfer = owl_i2c_master_xfer,
> > > > - .functionality = owl_i2c_func,
> > > > + .master_xfer = owl_i2c_xfer,
> > > > + .master_xfer_atomic = owl_i2c_xfer_atomic,
> > > > + .functionality = owl_i2c_func,
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > static const struct i2c_adapter_quirks owl_i2c_quirks = {
> > > > --
> > > > 2.28.0
> > > >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Cristi
