On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 8:50 AM Dhananjay Phadke
<dphadke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:52:53 +0530, Rayagonda Kokatanur wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
> >
> > - } else if (status & BIT(IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT)) {
> > - /* Start of SMBUS for Master Read */
> > + I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_REQUESTED, &rx_data);
> > + iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd = true;
> > + iproc_i2c->slave_read_complete = false;
> > + } else if (rx_status == I2C_SLAVE_RX_DATA &&
> > + iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd) {
> > + /* Middle of SMBUS Master write */
> > i2c_slave_event(iproc_i2c->slave,
> > - I2C_SLAVE_READ_REQUESTED, &value);
> > - iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, S_TX_OFFSET, value);
> > + I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED, &rx_data);
> > + } else if (rx_status == I2C_SLAVE_RX_END &&
> > + iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd) {
> > + /* End of SMBUS Master write */
> > + if (iproc_i2c->slave_rx_only)
> > + i2c_slave_event(iproc_i2c->slave,
> > + I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED,
> > + &rx_data);
> > +
> > + i2c_slave_event(iproc_i2c->slave, I2C_SLAVE_STOP,
> > + &rx_data);
> > + } else if (rx_status == I2C_SLAVE_RX_FIFO_EMPTY) {
> > + iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd = false;
> > + iproc_i2c->slave_read_complete = true;
> > + break;
> > + }
> >
> > - val = BIT(S_CMD_START_BUSY_SHIFT);
> > - iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, S_CMD_OFFSET, val);
> > + rx_bytes++;
>
> rx_bytes should be incremented only along with I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED event?
It should be incremented in both I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_REQUESTED and
I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED cases because in both cases it is reading
valid bytes from rx fifo.
>
> >
> > +static bool bcm_iproc_i2c_slave_isr(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c,
> > + u32 status)
> > +{
> > + u32 val;
> > + u8 value;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Slave events in case of master-write, master-write-read and,
> > + * master-read
> > + *
> > + * Master-write : only IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT event
> > + * Master-write-read: both IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT and IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT
> > + * events
> > + * Master-read : both IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT and IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT
> > + * events or only IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT
> > + */
> > + if (status & BIT(IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT) ||
> > + status & BIT(IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT)) {
> > + /* disable slave interrupts */
> > + val = iproc_i2c_rd_reg(iproc_i2c, IE_OFFSET);
> > + val &= ~iproc_i2c->slave_int_mask;
> > + iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, IE_OFFSET, val);
> > +
> > + if (status & BIT(IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT))
> > + /* Master-write-read request */
> > + iproc_i2c->slave_rx_only = false;
> > + else
> > + /* Master-write request only */
> > + iproc_i2c->slave_rx_only = true;
> > +
> > + /* schedule tasklet to read data later */
> > + tasklet_schedule(&iproc_i2c->slave_rx_tasklet);
> > +
> > + /* clear only IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT interrupt */
> > + iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, IS_OFFSET,
> > + BIT(IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT));
> >
>
> Both tasklet and isr are writing to status (IS_OFFSET) reg.
>
> The tasklet seems to be batching up rx fifo reads because of time-sensitive
> Master-write-read transaction? Linux I2C framework is byte interface anyway.
> Can the need to batch reads be avoided by setting slave rx threshold for
> interrupt (S_FIFO_RX_THLD) to 1-byte?
To process more data with a single interrupt we are batching up rx fifo reads.
This will reduce the number of interrupts.
Also to avoid tasklet running more time (20us) we have a threshold of
10 bytes for batching read.
This is a better/optimised approach than reading single byte data per interrupt.
>
> Also, wouldn't tasklets be susceptible to other interrupts? If fifo reads
> have to be batched up, can it be changed to threaded irq?
tasklets have higher priority than threaded irq, since i2c is time
sensitive so using a tasklet is preferred over threaded irq.
Best regards,
Rayagonda
>
>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
