On 12 May 2016 at 14:32, Abhishek Sahu <absahu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:58:30PM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:48:43AM +0530, Abhishek Sahu wrote: >> > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:13:47AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: >> > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:04:17PM +0530, Abhishek Sahu wrote: >> > > >> > > <snip> >> > > >> > > > > In qup_i2c_xfer and qup_i2c_xfer_v2 state is set to RESET at the >> > > > >end, when >> > > > > there is no error. So would it be fine if we do it there >> > > > >unconditionally ? >> > > > > >> > > > >Regards, >> > > > > Sricharan >> > > > >> > > > RESET the QUP state wouldn't create any issue in the case of multiple calls. >> > > > The existing code also RESET the QUP state for bus_err but it is not >> > > > clearing >> > > > status bits. >> > > >> > > It'd be better to not reset the QUP inside the ISR at all. I think the better >> > > solution is making the reset occur in the xfer function. So just clear the bits >> > > like you should in the isr, and defer reset till later. >> > >> > This is a HW workaround for QUP where we need to RESET the core in >> > ISR. When interrupt is level triggerd, more than one interrupt may >> > fire in error cases and QUP will generate these interrupts after >> > completion of current interrupt. Thus we reset the core immediately >> > in the ISR to ward off the next interrupt. >> >> I wonder if that was just an expedient solution. And it seems like it could be >> a little racy as a poll is not being done to make sure the QUP state machine >> transitions to reset. Is there any documentation/errata on this? Or is this >> just from commit comments? >> >> >> Regards, >> Andy > > Hi Andy, > > Thanks for your comments. We have only added the patch for clearing > the error bits. This resetting of QUP is present in the base code > itself. Since this QUP is being used by all the QCOM chips that's why > we have not changed the existing QUP reset logic. We will look > into reset polling logic separately and will post the patch for the > same. Yeah, it is present in the current code. I hadn't seen any errata on this issue, so that is why I was curious. In many cases, the code in the mainline driver was carried forward from the downstream CAF driver. I know the two don't look that similar in some regards, but in most cases the actions taken are the same, even if it is not obvious. > We got the input for QUP RESET by referring our working internal > drivers and we also faced the BAM hang issue in base upstream > driver, if we don't do this RESET. If we schedule any transfer > with DMA mode then the DMA Engine (BAM) will never get any interrupt > for these errors, since the QUP interrupt handles the error cases. > The BAM will generate the interrupt only when it will receive the > requested amount of data. This reset will clear the QUP FIFO and > we will get the BAM transfer completion interrupt by the existing > logic present in the base bam transfer function. Right. If the QUP has an issue and isn't processing data, and you have a BAM transaction pending for this, you have to not only ack the qup error, but also terminate the BAM transaction. What test case are you using to test out the error path? Something other than NACKs? Regards, Andy -- 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
