On 1/17/2015 8:01 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 02:09:28PM -0800, Ray Jui wrote:
>> On 1/15/2015 12:41 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 02:23:32PM -0800, Ray Jui wrote:
>>>> + */
>>>> + val = 1 << M_CMD_START_BUSY_SHIFT;
>>>> + if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RD) {
>>>> + val |= (M_CMD_PROTOCOL_BLK_RD << M_CMD_PROTOCOL_SHIFT) |
>>>> + (msg->len << M_CMD_RD_CNT_SHIFT);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + val |= (M_CMD_PROTOCOL_BLK_WR << M_CMD_PROTOCOL_SHIFT);
>>>> + }
>>>> + writel(val, iproc_i2c->base + M_CMD_OFFSET);
>>>> +
>>>> + time_left = wait_for_completion_timeout(&iproc_i2c->done, time_left);
>>>
>>> When the interrupt fires here after the complete timed out and before
>>> you disable the irq you still throw the result away.
>> Yes, but then this comes down to the fact that if it has reached the
>> point that is determined to be a timeout condition in the driver, one
>> should really treat it as timeout error. In a normal condition,
>> time_left should never reach zero.
> I don't agree here. I'm not sure there is a real technical reason,
> though. But still if you're in a "success after timeout already over"
> situation it's IMHO better to interpret it as success, not timeout.
>
The thing is, the interrupt should never fire after
wait_for_completion_timeout returns zero here. If it does, then the
issue is really that the timeout value set in the driver is probably not
long enough. I just checked other I2C drivers. I think the way how
timeout is handled here is consistent with other I2C drivers.
>>>> +static int bcm_iproc_i2c_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>> +
>>>> + i2c_del_adapter(&iproc_i2c->adapter);
>>> You need to free the irq before i2c_del_adapter.
>>>
>> Yes. Thanks. Change back to use devm_request_irq, and use disable_irq
>> here before removing the adapter.
> The more lightweight approach is to set your device's irq-enable
> register to zero and call synchronize_irq. (For a shared irq calling
> disable_irq is even wrong here.)
>
The fact that IRQF_SHARED flag is not set indicates this is a dedicated
IRQ line, so I thought using disable_irq here makes sense. But if both
you and Wolfram think masking all I2C interrupts at the block level +
synchronize_irq is a better approach, I can change to that. Thanks!
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
--
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
