Hi Andy,
Thanks for your comment.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 5:15 AM
> To: Tommy Huang <tommy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: brendan.higgins@xxxxxxxxx; p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; openbmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; joel@xxxxxxxxx; andrew@xxxxxxxx;
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-aspeed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; BMC-SW <BMC-SW@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: aspeed: Fix the dummy irq expected print
>
> Hi Tommy,
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 08:04:55PM +0800, Tommy Huang wrote:
> > When the i2c error condition occurred and master state was not idle,
> > the master irq function will goto complete state without any other
> > interrupt handling. It would cause dummy irq expected print. Under
> > this condition, assign the irq_status into irq_handle.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand much from your log here.
>
> Do you mean that irq_handled in aspeed_i2c_master_irq() is left with some
> states that is not supposed to have and then you end up printing here:
>
> dev_err(bus->dev,
> "irq handled != irq. expected 0x%08x, but was 0x%08x\n",
> irq_received, irq_handled);
>
> Can you please explain better?
>
Yes. If the platform met any irq error condition and the i2c wasn't stated under ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE.
Then the code flow would goto the end of aspeed_i2c_master_irq.
ret = aspeed_i2c_is_irq_error(irq_status);
if (ret) {
...
irq_handled |= (irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_MASTER_ERRORS);
if (bus->master_state != ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE) {
bus->cmd_err = ret;
bus->master_state = ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE;
goto out_complete;
}
}
Some master interrupt states were not handled under this situation.
The fake irq not equaled message would be filled into whole of demsg.
It's most like below example.
...
aspeed-i2c-bus 1e78a780. i2c-bus: irq handled != irq. expected 0x00000030, but was 0x00000020
aspeed-i2c-bus 1e78a780. i2c-bus: irq handled != irq. expected 0x00000030, but was 0x00000020
aspeed-i2c-bus 1e78a780. i2c-bus: irq handled != irq. expected 0x00000030, but was 0x00000020
...
I thought the bus->cmd_err has been filled error reason and it would be returned to upper layer.
So, I didn't think the print should be existed.
> If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to check for
> bus->master_state != ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE) earlier?
>
Did you suggest to add "bus->master_state != ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE" judgement before print the irq not equal print?
> And, still, If that's the case, I believe you might need the Fixes tag. It's true that
> you are not really failing, but you are not reporting a failure by mistake.
>
> Thanks,
> Andi
>
> > Signed-off-by: Tommy Huang <tommy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
> > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c index 5511fd46a65e..ce8c4846b7fa
> > 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
> > @@ -445,6 +445,7 @@ static u32 aspeed_i2c_master_irq(struct
> aspeed_i2c_bus *bus, u32 irq_status)
> > irq_status);
> > irq_handled |= (irq_status & ASPEED_I2CD_INTR_MASTER_ERRORS);
> > if (bus->master_state != ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE) {
> > + irq_handled = irq_status;
> > bus->cmd_err = ret;
> > bus->master_state = ASPEED_I2C_MASTER_INACTIVE;
> > goto out_complete;
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
