Adding Ryan.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 11:56 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> > > +struct aspeed_i2c_bus {
>> > > + struct i2c_adapter adap;
>> > > + struct device *dev;
>> > > + void __iomem *base;
>> > > + /* Synchronizes I/O mem access to base. */
>> > > + spinlock_t lock;
>> >
>> > I am not entirely convinced we need that lock. The i2c core will
>> > take a mutex protecting all operations on the bus. So we only need
>> > to synchronize between our "xfer" code and our interrupt handler.
>>
>> You are right if both having slave and master active at the same time
>> was not possible; however, it is.
>
> Right, I somewhat forgot about the slave case.
>
> ...
>
>> > Some of those error states probably also warrant a reset of the
>> > controller,
>> > I think aspeed does that in the SDK.
>>
>> For timeout and cmd_err, I do not see any argument against it; it
>> sounds like we are in a very messed up, very unknown state, so full
>> reset is probably the best last resort.
>
> Yup.
>
>> For SDA staying pulled down, I
>> think we can say with reasonable confidence that some device on our
>> bus is behaving very badly and I am not convinced that resetting the
>> controller is likely to do anything to help;
>
> Right. Hammering with STOPs and pray ...
I think sending recovery mode sends stops as a part of the recovery
algorithm it executes.
>
>> that being said, I really
>> do not have any good ideas to address that. So maybe praying and
>> resetting the controller is *the most reasonable thing to do.* I
>> would like to know what you think we should do in that case.
>
> Well, there's a (small ?) chance that it's a controller bug asserting
> the line so ... but there's little we can do if not.
True.
>
>> While I was thinking about this I also realized that the SDA line
>> check after recovery happens in the else branch, but SCL line check
>> does not happen after we attempt to STOP if SCL is hung. If we decide
>> to make special note SDA being hung by a device that won't let go, we
>> might want to make a special note that SCL is hung by a device that
>> won't let go. Just a thought.
>
> Maybe. Or just "unrecoverable error"... hopefully these don't happen
> too often ... We had cases of a TPM misbehaving like that.
Yeah, definitely should print something out.
>
>> > > +out:
>>
>> ...
>> > What about I2C_M_NOSTART ?
>> >
>> > Not that I've ever seen it used... ;-)
>>
>> Right now I am not doing any of the protocol mangling options, but I
>> can add them in if you think it is important for initial support.
>
> No, not important, we can add that later if it ever becomes useful.
>
> ...
>
>> > In general, you always ACK all interrupts first. Then you handle
>> > the bits you have harvested.
>> >
>>
>> The documentation says to ACK the interrupt after handling in the RX
>> case:
>>
>> <<<
>> S/W needs to clear this status bit to allow next data receiving.
>> > > >
>>
>> I will double check with Ryan to make sure TX works the same way.
>>
>> > > + if (irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_ERROR ||
>> > > + (!bus->msgs && bus->master_state !=
>> > > ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_STOP)) {
>>
>> ...
>> >
>> > I would set master_state to "RECOVERY" (new state ?) and ensure
>> > those things are caught if they happen outside of a recovery.
>
> I replied privately ... as long as we ack before we start a new command
> we should be ok but we shouldn't ack after.
>
> Your latest patch still does that. It will do things like start a STOP
> command *then* ack the status bits. I'm pretty sure that's bogus.
>
> That way it's a lot simpler to simply move the
>
> writel(irq_status, bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
>
> To either right after the readl of the status reg at the beginning of
> aspeed_i2c_master_irq().
>
> I would be very surprised if that didn't work properly and wasn't much
> safer than what you are currently doing.
I think I tried your way and it worked. In anycase, Ryan will be able
to clarify for us.
>
>> Let me know if you still think we need a "RECOVERY" state.
>
> The way you just switch to stop state and store the error for later
> should work I think.
>
>> >
>> > > + if (bus->master_state == ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_START) {
>>
>> ...
>> >
>> > > + dev_dbg(bus->dev,
>> > > + "no slave present at %02x", msg-
>> > > >addr);
>> > > + status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_NAK;
>> > > + bus->cmd_err = -EIO;
>> > > + do_stop(bus);
>> > > + goto out_no_complete;
>> > > + } else {
>> > > + status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_TX_ACK;
>> > > + if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RD)
>> > > + bus->master_state =
>> > > ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_RX;
>> > > + else
>> > > + bus->master_state =
>> > > ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_TX_FIRST;
>> >
>> > What about the SMBUS_QUICK case ? (0-len transfer). Do we need
>> > to handle this here ? A quick look at the TX_FIRST case makes
>> > me think we are ok there but I'm not sure about the RX case.
>>
>> I did not think that there is an SMBUS_QUICK RX. Could you point me
>> to an example?
>
> Not so much an RX, it's more like you are sending a 1-bit data in
> the place of the Rd/Wr bit. So you have a read with a lenght of 0,
> I don't think in that case you should set ASPEED_I2CD_M_RX_CMD in
> __aspeed_i2c_do_start
Forget what I said, I was just not thinking about the fact that SMBus
emulation causes the data bit to be encoded as the R/W flag. I see
what you are saying; you are correct.
>
>> > I'm not sure the RX case is tight also. What completion does the
>> > HW give you for the address cycle ? Won't you get that before it
>> > has received the first character ? IE. You fall through to
>> > the read case of the state machine with the read potentially
>> > not complete yet no ?
>>
>> ...
>> > > + case ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_RX:
>> > > + if (!(irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE)) {
>> > > + dev_err(bus->dev, "master failed to RX");
>> > > + goto out_complete;
>> > > + }
>> >
>> > See my comment above for a bog standard i2c_read. Aren't you
>> > getting
>> > the completion for the address before the read is even started ?
>>
>> In practice no, but it is probably best to be safe :-)
>
> Yup :)
>> >
>> > > + status_ack |= ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE;
>> > > +
>> > > + recv_byte = aspeed_i2c_read(bus,
>> > > ASPEED_I2C_BYTE_BUF_REG) >> 8;
>> > > + msg->buf[bus->buf_index++] = recv_byte;
>> > > +
>> > > + if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RECV_LEN &&
>> > > + recv_byte <= I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX) {
>> > > + msg->len = recv_byte +
>> > > + ((msg->flags &
>> > > I2C_CLIENT_PEC) ? 2 : 1);
>>
>> ...
>> > > + return ((clk_high << ASPEED_I2CD_TIME_SCL_HIGH_SHIFT)
>> > > + & ASPEED_I2CD_TIME_SCL_HIGH_MASK)
>> > > + | ((clk_low <<
>> > > ASPEED_I2CD_TIME_SCL_LOW_SHIFT)
>> > > + & ASPEED_I2CD_TIME_SCL_LOW_MASK)
>> > > + | (base_clk &
>> > > ASPEED_I2CD_TIME_BASE_DIVISOR_MASK);
>> > > +}
>> >
>> > As I think I mentioned earlier, the AST2500 has a slightly
>> > different
>> > register layout which support larger values for high and low, thus
>> > allowing a finer granularity.
>>
>> I am developing against the 2500.
>
> Yes but we'd like the driver to work with both :-)
Right, I thought you were making an assertion about the 2500, if you
are making an assertion about the 2400, I do not know and do not have
one handy.
>
>> > BTW. In case you haven't, I would suggest you copy/paste the above
>> > in
>> > a userspace app and run it for all frequency divisors and see if
>> > your
>> > results match the aspeed table :)
>>
>> Good call.
>
> If you end up doing that, can you shoot it my way ? I can take care
> of making sure it's all good for the 2400.
Will do.
>
>> > > +static int aspeed_i2c_init_clk(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus,
>> > > + struct platform_device *pdev)
>> > > +{
>> > > + u32 clk_freq, divisor;
>> > > + struct clk *pclk;
>> > > + int ret;
>> > > +
>> > > + pclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>> > > + if (IS_ERR(pclk)) {
>> > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "clk_get failed\n");
>> > > + return PTR_ERR(pclk);
>> > > + }
>> > > + ret = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node,
>> > > + "clock-frequency", &clk_freq);
>> >
>> > See my previous comment about calling that 'bus-frequency' rather
>> > than 'clock-frequency'.
>> >
>> > > + if (ret < 0) {
>> > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>> > > + "Could not read clock-frequency
>> > > property\n");
>> > > + clk_freq = 100000;
>> > > + }
>> > > + divisor = clk_get_rate(pclk) / clk_freq;
>> > > + /* We just need the clock rate, we don't actually use the
>> > > clk object. */
>> > > + devm_clk_put(&pdev->dev, pclk);
>> > > +
>> > > + /* Set AC Timing */
>> > > + if (clk_freq / 1000 > 1000) {
>> > > + aspeed_i2c_write(bus, aspeed_i2c_read(bus,
>> > > + ASPEED_I2C_FU
>> > > N_CTRL_REG) |
>> > > + ASPEED_I2CD_M_HIGH_SPEED_EN |
>> > > + ASPEED_I2CD_M_SDA_DRIVE_1T_EN |
>> > > + ASPEED_I2CD_SDA_DRIVE_1T_EN,
>> > > + ASPEED_I2C_FUN_CTRL_REG);
>> > > +
>> > > + aspeed_i2c_write(bus, 0x3,
>> > > ASPEED_I2C_AC_TIMING_REG2);
>> > > + aspeed_i2c_write(bus,
>> > > aspeed_i2c_get_clk_reg_val(divisor),
>> > > + ASPEED_I2C_AC_TIMING_REG1);
>> >
>> > I already discussed by doubts about the above. I can try to scope
>> > it with the EVB if you don't get to it. For now I'd rather take the
>> > code out.
>> >
>> > We should ask aspeed from what frequency the "1T" stuff is useful.
>>
>> Will do, I will try to rope Ryan in on the next review; it will be
>> good for him to get used to working with upstream anyway.
>
> Yup. However, for the sake of getting something upstream (and in
> OpenBMC 4.10 kernel) asap, I would suggest just dropping support
> for those fast speeds for now, we can add them back later.
Alright, that's fine. Still, Ryan, could you provide some context on this?
>
>> >
>> > > + } else {
>> > > + aspeed_i2c_write(bus,
>> > > aspeed_i2c_get_clk_reg_val(divisor),
>> > > + ASPEED_I2C_AC_TIMING_REG1);
>> > > + aspeed_i2c_write(bus, ASPEED_NO_TIMEOUT_CTRL,
>> > > + ASPEED_I2C_AC_TIMING_REG2);
>> > > + }
>>
>> ...
>> > > + spin_lock_init(&bus->lock);
>> > > + init_completion(&bus->cmd_complete);
>> > > + bus->adap.owner = THIS_MODULE;
>> > > + bus->adap.retries = 0;
>> > > + bus->adap.timeout = 5 * HZ;
>> > > + bus->adap.algo = &aspeed_i2c_algo;
>> > > + bus->adap.algo_data = bus;
>> > > + bus->adap.dev.parent = &pdev->dev;
>> > > + bus->adap.dev.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>> > > + snprintf(bus->adap.name, sizeof(bus->adap.name), "Aspeed
>> > > i2c");
>> >
>> > Another trivial one, should we put some kind of bus number
>> > in that string ?
>>
>> Whoops, looks like I missed this one; I will get to it in the next
>> revision.
>
> Ok. I noticed you missed that in v7, so I assume you mean v8 :-)
Yep, I will get it in v8.
>
>> >
>> > > + bus->dev = &pdev->dev;
>> > > +
>> > > + /* reset device: disable master & slave functions */
>> > > + aspeed_i2c_write(bus, 0, ASPEED_I2C_FUN_CTRL_REG);
>>
>> ...
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree"
>> in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
