On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:01, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Tested-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> (using code based on 3.0-rc1, on Harmony, ran "speaker-test -c 2", and
> then adjusted the volume a lot using alsamixer, thus causing quite a few
> I2C transactions)
Thanks for the testing and the review !
>> > @@ -213,38 +213,41 @@ static int tegra_i2c_empty_rx_fifo(struct tegra_i2c_dev *i2c_dev)
>> > u32 val;
>> > int rx_fifo_avail;
>> > u8 *buf = i2c_dev->msg_buf;
>> > - size_t buf_remaining = i2c_dev->msg_buf_remaining;
>
> The old code read msg_buf_remaining once up front and did everything
> based on that.
>
>> > int words_to_transfer;
>> > + int bytes_to_transfer;
>> >
>> > val = i2c_readl(i2c_dev, I2C_FIFO_STATUS);
>> > rx_fifo_avail = (val & I2C_FIFO_STATUS_RX_MASK) >>
>> > I2C_FIFO_STATUS_RX_SHIFT;
>> >
>> > /* Rounds down to not include partial word at the end of buf */
>> > - words_to_transfer = buf_remaining / BYTES_PER_FIFO_WORD;
>> > + words_to_transfer = atomic_read(&i2c_dev->msg_buf_remaining) /
>> > + BYTES_PER_FIFO_WORD;
>
> Whereas the new code reads msg_buf_remaining once here...
>
>> > if (words_to_transfer > rx_fifo_avail)
>> > words_to_transfer = rx_fifo_avail;
>> >
>> > + atomic_sub(words_to_transfer * BYTES_PER_FIFO_WORD,
>> > + &i2c_dev->msg_buf_remaining);
>> > i2c_readsl(i2c_dev, buf, I2C_RX_FIFO, words_to_transfer);
>> >
>> > buf += words_to_transfer * BYTES_PER_FIFO_WORD;
>> > - buf_remaining -= words_to_transfer * BYTES_PER_FIFO_WORD;
>> > rx_fifo_avail -= words_to_transfer;
>> >
>> > /*
>> > * If there is a partial word at the end of buf, handle it manually to
>> > * prevent overwriting past the end of buf
>> > */
>> > - if (rx_fifo_avail > 0 && buf_remaining > 0) {
>> > - BUG_ON(buf_remaining > 3);
>> > + bytes_to_transfer = atomic_read(&i2c_dev->msg_buf_remaining);
>
> And again here...
>
>> > + if (rx_fifo_avail > 0 && bytes_to_transfer > 0) {
>> > + BUG_ON(bytes_to_transfer > 3);
>
> That means that if msg_buf_remaining increases between those two reads,
> this BUG_ON could trigger.
>
> I assume this isn't possible, because the I2C core only sends one
> transaction to the I2C driver and doesn't send any more requests down
> until the previous is complete. If so, then the new code seems fine, but
> I did want to double-check this.
The transfers are serialized in the i2c_transfer function of the core
(which calls the tegra_i2c_xfer callback) and msg_buf_remaining can
only increase when it is set at the beginning of tegra_i2c_xfer_msg.
So yes we have at most one transaction and I don't think we can
trigger this BUG_ON.
--
Vincent
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
