TWIMC: this mail is primarily send for documentation purposes and for
regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot. These mails usually
contain '#forregzbot' in the subject, to make them easy to spot and filter.
On 08.09.22 15:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
>> to make this easily accessible to everyone.
>>
>> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
>> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
>> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
>> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
>> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
>
> No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
> production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
> Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
> it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
> either...
>
> Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
FWIW, in that case:
#regzbot backburner: a proper fix will take some time and reporter has a
work-around
>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>
>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>
>> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I run
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>>> are written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>>
>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>> Codrin
>>>>>
>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>>
>>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>
>>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>>> the failure is completely silent.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>
>> #regzbot poke
>
