Re: [PATCH v4] at24: Support SMBus read/write of 16-bit devices

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Aaron,

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:25:11 -0600 (CST), Aaron Sierra wrote:
> Previously, the at24 driver would bail out in the case of a 16-bit
> addressable EEPROM attached to an SMBus controller. This is because
> SMBus block reads and writes don't map to I2C multi-byte reads and
> writes when the offset portion is 2 bytes.
> 
> Instead of bailing out, this patch settles for functioning with single
> byte read SMBus cycles. Writes can be block or single-byte, depending
> on SMBus controller features.
> 
> Read access is not without some risk. Multiple SMBus cycles are
> required to read even one byte. If the SMBus has multiple masters and
> one accesses this EEPROM between the dummy address write and the
> subsequent current-address-read cycle(s), this driver will receive
> data from the wrong address.
> 
> Functionality has been tested with the following devices:
> 
>     AT24CM01 attached to Intel ISCH SMBus
>     AT24C512 attached to Intel I801 SMBus
> 
> Read performance:
>     3.6 KB/s with 32-byte* access
> 
>     *limited to 32-bytes by I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX.
> 
> Write performance:
>     248 B/s with 1-byte page (default)
>     3.9 KB/s with 128-byte* page (via platform data)
> 
>     *limited to 31-bytes by I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX - 1.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nate Case <ncase@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Sierra <asierra@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  v2 - Account for changes related to introduction of
>       i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data_or_emulated()
>  v3 - Consolidate three patches into one
>     - Expand comments regarding SMBus multi-master read risks.
>     - Rely on current-address-read for improved read performance (i.e. one
>       dummy address write followed by multiple individual byte reads).
>       This improves performance from 1.4 KiB/s to 3.6 KiB/s.
>     - Use struct at24_data's writebuf instead of kzalloc-ing
>     - Only limit write_max by 1-byte when accessing a 16-bit device with
>       block writes instead of attempting to preserve a power-of-two.
>     - Style fixes (indentation, parentheses, unnecessary masking, etc.)
>  v4 - Address 16-bit safety in Kconfig
>     - Set "count" to zero later in at24_smbus_read_block_data()
>     - Fix over-80-columns issues in at24_eeprom_read()
>     - Fix write_max off-by-one in at24_probe()
>     - Check SMBus functionality needed for 16-bit device reads
>     - Homogenize indentation of SMBus functionality checks for SMBus write
>
>  drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig |   5 +-
>  drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c  | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

This is a significant addition of code so feel free to add your name at
the top of at24.c.

We're almost there:

> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> index 5d7c090..3dfd2ed 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> (...)
> @@ -527,10 +608,19 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>  
>  	/* Use I2C operations unless we're stuck with SMBus extensions. */
>  	if (!i2c_check_functionality(client->adapter, I2C_FUNC_I2C)) {
> -		if (chip.flags & AT24_FLAG_ADDR16)
> -			return -EPFNOSUPPORT;
> -
> -		if (i2c_check_functionality(client->adapter,
> +		if ((chip.flags & AT24_FLAG_ADDR16) &&
> +		    i2c_check_functionality(client->adapter,
> +				I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_BYTE_DATA |
> +				I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_WRITE_BYTE_DATA)) {

It is I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_BYTE that you use, not
I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_BYTE_DATA.

> +			/*
> +			 * We need SMBUS_WRITE_BYTE_DATA and
> +			 * SMBUS_READ_BYTE_DATA to implement byte reads for
> +			 * 16-bit address devices. This will be slow, but
> +			 * better than nothing (e.g. read @ 3.6 KiB/s). It is
> +			 * also unsafe in a multi-master topology.
> +			 */
> +			use_smbus = I2C_SMBUS_BYTE_DATA;
> +		} else if (i2c_check_functionality(client->adapter,
>  				I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_I2C_BLOCK)) {
>  			use_smbus = I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA;
>  		} else if (i2c_check_functionality(client->adapter,
> (...)
> @@ -598,8 +698,9 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>  
>  			if (write_max > io_limit)
>  				write_max = io_limit;
> -			if (use_smbus && write_max > I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX)
> -				write_max = I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX;
> +			if (use_smbus && write_max >= I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX)
> +				write_max = I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX -
> +					!!(chip.flags & AT24_FLAG_ADDR16);

Beh. OK, it works, I will admit it's even kind of clever, but it also
looks fragile and confusing to some degree. What is wrong with just
spelling out the condition explicitly?

			unsigned smbus_limit = (chip.flags & AT24_FLAG_ADDR16) ?
					       I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX - 1 :
					       I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX;

			if (use_smbus && write_max > smbus_limit)
				write_max = smbus_limit;

This might not even be slower, and IMHO it is easier to understand.

>  			at24->write_max = write_max;
>  
>  			/* buffer (data + address at the beginning) */

I have no objection to this patch being merged into the upstream
kernel, but ultimately this is Wolfram's call.

Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Hardward Monitoring]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux