Hi, Neal:
Neal Liu <neal.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年7月23日 週四 下午2:11寫道：
>
> Hi Chun-Kuang,
>
> On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 22:25 +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> > Hi, Neal:
> >
> > Neal Liu <neal.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年7月22日 週三 上午11:49寫道：
> > >
> > > Hi Chun-Kuang,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 07:21 +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> > > > Hi, Neal:
> > > >
> > > > Neal Liu <neal.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年7月21日 週二 下午12:00寫道：
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * mtk_devapc_dump_vio_dbg - get the violation index and dump the full violation
> > > > > + * debug information.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static bool mtk_devapc_dump_vio_dbg(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx, u32 vio_idx)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + u32 shift_bit;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (check_vio_mask(ctx, vio_idx))
> > > > > + return false;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!check_vio_status(ctx, vio_idx))
> > > > > + return false;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + shift_bit = get_shift_group(ctx, vio_idx);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (sync_vio_dbg(ctx, shift_bit))
> > > > > + return false;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + devapc_extract_vio_dbg(ctx);
> > > >
> > > > I think get_shift_group(), sync_vio_dbg(), and
> > > > devapc_extract_vio_dbg() should be moved out of vio_idx for-loop (the
> > > > loop in devapc_violation_irq()) because these three function is not
> > > > related to vio_idx.
> > > > Another question: when multiple vio_idx violation occur, vio_addr is
> > > > related to which one vio_idx? The latest happened one?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, it's related to vio_idx. But we don't use it directly on these
> > > function. I think below snip code might be better way to understand it.
> > >
> > > for (...)
> > > {
> > > check_vio_mask()
> > > check_vio_status()
> > >
> > > // if get vio_idx, mask it temporarily
> > > mask_module_irq(true)
> > > clear_vio_status()
> > >
> > > // dump violation info
> > > get_shift_group()
> > > sync_vio_dbg()
> > > devapc_extract_vio_dbg()
> > >
> > > // unmask
> > > mask_module_irq(false)
> > > }
> >
> > This snip code does not explain any thing. I could rewrite this code as:
> >
> > for (...)
> > {
> > check_vio_mask()
> > check_vio_status()
> >
> > // if get vio_idx, mask it temporarily
> > mask_module_irq(true)
> > clear_vio_status()
> > // unmask
> > mask_module_irq(false)
> > }
> >
> > // dump violation info
> > get_shift_group()
> > sync_vio_dbg()
> > devapc_extract_vio_dbg()
> >
> > And my version is identical with your version, isn't it?
>
> Sorry, I did not explain it clearly. Let's me try again.
> The reason why I put "dump violation info" between mask & unmask context
> is because it has to stop interrupt first before dump violation info,
> and then unmask it to prepare next violation.
> These sequence guarantee that if multiple violation is triggered, we
> still have information to debug.
> If the code sequence in your version and multiple violation is
> triggered, there might be no any information but keeps entering ISR.
> Finally, system might be abnormal and watchdog timeout.
> In this case, we still don't have any information to debug.
I still don't understand why no information to debug. For example when
vio_idx 5, 10, 15 has violation,
You would mask vio_idx 5 to get information, but vio_idx 10, 15 does
not mask yet.
In your words, when vio_idx 10, 15 not mask, you would not get any
debug information when you process vio_idx 5.
In my version, I would clear all status, why keeps entering ISR?
>
> >
> > >
> > > About your question, vio_addr would be the first one.
> >
> > So other vio_addr would be dropped? Or hardware would keep all
> > vio_addr and you have some way to get all vio_addr?
> >
>
> In this case, hardware will drop other violation info and keep the first
> one until it been handled.
Does 'handled' mean status is cleared?
Regards,
Chun-Kuang.
>
> > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return true;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * devapc_violation_irq - the devapc Interrupt Service Routine (ISR) will dump
> > > > > + * violation information including which master violates
> > > > > + * access slave.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static irqreturn_t devapc_violation_irq(int irq_number,
> > > > > + struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + u32 vio_idx;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for (vio_idx = 0; vio_idx < ctx->vio_idx_num; vio_idx++) {
> > > > > + if (!mtk_devapc_dump_vio_dbg(ctx, vio_idx))
> > > > > + continue;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Ensure that violation info are written before
> > > > > + * further operations
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + smp_mb();
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Mask slave's irq before clearing vio status.
> > > > > + * Must do it to avoid nested interrupt and prevent
> > > > > + * unexpected behavior.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + mask_module_irq(ctx, vio_idx, true);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + clear_vio_status(ctx, vio_idx);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mask_module_irq(ctx, vio_idx, false);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/*
