lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] i2c: designware: fix slave omitted IC_INTR_STOP_DET
From
Date
Hi

On 10/14/20 8:25 AM, Michael Wu wrote:
> When an I2C slave works, sometimes both IC_INTR_RX_FULL and
> IC_INTR_STOP_DET are rising during an IRQ handle, especially when system
> is busy or too late to handle interrupts.
>
> If IC_INTR_RX_FULL is rising and the system doesn't handle immediately,
> IC_INTR_STOP_DET may be rising and the system has to handle these two
> events. For this there may be two problems:
> e
> 1. IC_INTR_STOP_DET is rising after i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits_slave()
> done: It seems invalidated because WRITE_REQUESTED is done after the
> 1st WRITE_RECEIVED.
>
> $ i2cset -f -y 2 0x42 0x00 0x41; dmesg -c
> [0][clear_intrbits]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x1 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x514 : INTR_STAT=0x4
> [1][irq_handler ]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x1 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x514 : INTR_STAT=0x4
> WRITE_RECEIVED
> [0][clear_intrbits]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x1 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x514 : INTR_STAT=0x4
> [1][irq_handler ]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x0 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x714 : INTR_STAT=0x204
> WRITE_REQUESTED
> WRITE_RECEIVED
> [0][clear_intrbits]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x0 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x710 : INTR_STAT=0x200
> [1][irq_handler ]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x0 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x510 : INTR_STAT=0x0
> STOP
> [2][clear_intrbits]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x0 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x510 : INTR_STAT=0x0
>
> t1: ISR with the 1st IC_INTR_RX_FULL.
> t2: Clear listed IC_INTR bits by i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits_slave().
> t3: Enter i2c_dw_irq_handler_slave() and then do
> i2c_slave_event(WRITE_RECEIVED) because
> if (stat & DW_IC_INTR_RX_FULL).
> t4: ISR with the 2nd IC_INTR_RX_FULL.
> t5: Clear listed IC_INTR bits by i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits_slave(),
> while IC_INTR_STOP_DET has not risen yet.
> t6: Enter i2c_dw_irq_handler_slave() and then IC_INTR_STOP_DET is
> rising. i2c_slave_event(WRITE_REQUESTED) will be done first because
> if ((stat & DW_IC_INTR_RX_FULL) && (stat & DW_IC_INTR_STOP_DET)) and
> then doing i2c_slave_event(WRITE_RECEIVED).
> t7: do i2c_slave_event(STOP) due to IC_INTR_STOP_DET not be cleared yet.
>
> 2. Both IC_INTR_STOP_DET and IC_INTR_RX_FULL are rising before
> i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits_slave(): STOP cannot wait because
> IC_INTR_STOP_DET is cleared by i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits_slave().
>
> $ i2cset -f -y 2 0x42 0x00 0x41; dmesg -c
> [0][clear_intrbits]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x1 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x514 : INTR_STAT=0x4
> [1][irq_handler ]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x1 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x514 : INTR_STAT=0x4
> WRITE_RECEIVED
> [0][clear_intrbits]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x0 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x714 : INTR_STAT=0x204
> [1][irq_handler ]0x1 STATUS SLAVE_ACTIVITY=0x0 : RAW_INTR_STAT=0x514 : INTR_STAT=0x4
> WRITE_RECEIVED
>
> t1: ISR with the 1st IC_INTR_RX_FULL.
> t2: Clear listed IC_INTR bits by i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits_slave().
> t3: Enter i2c_dw_irq_handler_slave() and then do
> i2c_slave_event(WRITE_RECEIVED) because
> if (stat & DW_IC_INTR_RX_FULL).
> t4: ISR with both IC_INTR_STOP_DET and the 2nd IC_INTR_RX_FULL.
> t5: Clear listed IC_INTR bits by i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits_slave(). The
> current IC_INTR_STOP_DET is cleared by this
> i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits_slave().
> t6: Enter i2c_dw_irq_handler_slave() and then do
> i2c_slave_event(WRITE_RECEIVED) because
> if (stat & DW_IC_INTR_RX_FULL).
> t7: i2c_slave_event(STOP) never be done because IC_INTR_STOP_DET was
> cleared in t5.
>
> In order to resolve these problems, i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits_slave()
> should be called only one time in ISR and take the returned stat to handle
> those occurred events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Wu <michael.wu@vatics.com>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c | 79 ++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>
Thanks for the patch. I was thinking this too after your report but
haven't found actually time to look at implementing it.

But what I was thinking it is probably good to have two patches. First
patch that changes only i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits_slave() semantics so
that it's called only once like here and second patch that does other
logic changes. Makes easier to catch possible regressions I think.

Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-14 12:45    [W:0.074 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site