Hi Dmitry,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 01:58:58AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 at 22:26, Christian A. Ehrhardt <lk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 06:29:18PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > Newer Qualcomm platforms (sm8450+) successfully handle busy state and
> > > send the Command Completion after sending the Busy state. Older devices
> > > have firmware bug and can not continue after sending the CCI_BUSY state,
> > > but the command that leads to CCI_BUSY is already forbidden by the
> > > NO_PARTNER_PDOS quirk.
> > >
> > > Follow other UCSI glue drivers and drop special handling for CCI_BUSY
> > > event. Let the UCSI core properly handle this state.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi_glink.c | 10 ++++------
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi_glink.c b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi_glink.c
> > > index 9ffea20020e7..fe9b951f5228 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi_glink.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi_glink.c
> > > @@ -176,7 +176,8 @@ static int pmic_glink_ucsi_sync_write(struct ucsi *__ucsi, unsigned int offset,
> > > left = wait_for_completion_timeout(&ucsi->sync_ack, 5 * HZ);
> > > if (!left) {
> > > dev_err(ucsi->dev, "timeout waiting for UCSI sync write response\n");
> > > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > + /* return 0 here and let core UCSI code handle the CCI_BUSY */
> > > + ret = 0;
> > > } else if (ucsi->sync_val) {
> > > dev_err(ucsi->dev, "sync write returned: %d\n", ucsi->sync_val);
> > > }
> > > @@ -243,11 +244,8 @@ static void pmic_glink_ucsi_notify(struct work_struct *work)
> > > ucsi_connector_change(ucsi->ucsi, con_num);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (ucsi->sync_pending && cci & UCSI_CCI_BUSY) {
> > > - ucsi->sync_val = -EBUSY;
> > > - complete(&ucsi->sync_ack);
> > > - } else if (ucsi->sync_pending &&
> > > - (cci & (UCSI_CCI_ACK_COMPLETE | UCSI_CCI_COMMAND_COMPLETE))) {
> > > + if (ucsi->sync_pending &&
> > > + (cci & (UCSI_CCI_ACK_COMPLETE | UCSI_CCI_COMMAND_COMPLETE))) {
> > > complete(&ucsi->sync_ack);
> > > }
> > > }
> >
> > This handling of the command completion turned out to be racy in
> > the ACPI case: If a normal command was sent one should wait for
> > UCSI_CCI_COMMAND_COMPLETE only. In case of an UCSI_ACK_CC_CI
> > command the completion is indicated by UCSI_CCI_ACK_COMPLETE.
> >
> > While not directly related, a port of this
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240121204123.275441-3-lk@xxxxxxx/
> > would nicely fit into this series.
>
> Ack, I'll take a look.
Thanks.
> However... I can not stop but notice that CCG and STM32 glue drivers
> use the same old approach as we do. Which probably means that they
> might have the same issue.
I did ping the ccg people wrt. this but they have a different
workaround that saves them at least most of the time, so I let
this drop.
> Could you please consider pulling up that
> code into the UCSI driver? Maybe the low-level code really should just
> read/write the messages, leaving all completions and CCI parsing to
> the core layer?
I did consider that but one of the ideas behind the new API for
UCSI backends was that backends can send commands (e.g. as part of
a quirk) even in the middle of a ->sync_write() call. Currently,
I don't really see how to combine this with completion handling
in the UCSI core.
> > I don't have the hardware to do this myself.
I did propose other changes to the API with little respone here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240218222039.822040-1-lk@xxxxxxx/
That could possibly be extended to achieve this. But again, that
would require testers for all the backends.
Best regards,
Christian
