Hey Wolfram, On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 10:36:33AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 11:16:24AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 10:50:56AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > At present, where repeated sends are intended to be used, the > > > > i2c-microchip-core driver sends a stop followed by a start. Lots of i2c > > > > > > Oh, this is wrong. Was this just overlooked or was maybe older hardware > > > not able to generated correct repeated-starts? > > > > Overlooked, because the devices that had been used until recently didn't > > care about whether they got a repeated start or stop + start. The bare > > metal driver upon which the Linux one was originally based had a trivial > > time of supporting repeated starts because it only allows specific sorts > > of transfers. I kinda doubt you care, but the bare metal implementation > > is here: > > https://github.com/polarfire-soc/polarfire-soc-bare-metal-library/blob/614a67abb3023ba47ea6d1b8d7b9a9997353e007/src/platform/drivers/mss/mss_i2c/mss_i2c.c#L737 > > > > It just must have been missed that the bare metal method was not replaced. > > > > > > devices must not malfunction in the face of this behaviour, because the > > > > driver has operated like this for years! Try to keep track of whether or > > > > not a repeated send is required, and suppress sending a stop in these > > > > cases. > > > > > > ? I don't get that argument. If the driver is expected to do a repeated > > > start, it should do a repeated start. If it didn't, it was a bug and you > > > were lucky that the targets could handle this. Because most controllers > > > can do repeated starts correctly, we can also argue that this works for > > > most targets for years. In the unlikely event that a target fails after > > > converting this driver to proper repeated starts, the target is buggy > > > and needs fixing. It would not work with the majority of other > > > controllers this way. > > > > > > I didn't look at the code but reading "keeping track whether rep start > > > is required" looks wrong from a high level perspective. > > > > I think if you had looked at the code, you'd (hopefully) understand what > > I meant w.r.t. tracking that. > > The design of this IP is pretty old, and intended for use with other > > logic implemented in FPGA fabric where each interrupt generated by > > the core would be the stimulus for the state machine controlling it to > > transition state. Cos of that, when controlling it from software, the > > interrupt handler assumes the role of that state machine. When I talk > > about tracking whether or not a repeated send is required, that's > > whether or not a particular message in a transfer requires it, not > > whether or not the target device requires them or not. > > > > Currently the driver operates by iterating over a list of messages in a > > transfer, and calling send() for each one, and then effectively "looping" > > in the interrupt handler until the message has been sent. By looking at > > the current code, you can see that the completion's "lifecycle" matches > > that. Currently, at the end of each message being sent > > static irqreturn_t mchp_corei2c_handle_isr(struct mchp_corei2c_dev *idev) > > { > > > > <snip> > > > > /* On the last byte to be transmitted, send STOP */ > > if (last_byte) > > mchp_corei2c_stop(idev); > > > > if (last_byte || finished) > > complete(&idev->msg_complete); > > > > return IRQ_HANDLED; > > } > > a stop is put on the bus, unless !last_byte, which is only true in error > > cases. Clearly I don't need to explain why that is a problem to you... > > You'd think that we could do something like moving the stop out of the > > interrupt handler, and to the loop in mchp_corei2c_xfer(), where we have > > access to the transfer's message list and can check if a stop should be > > sent or not - that's not really possible with the hardware we have. > > > > When the interrupt handler completes, it clears the interrupt bit in the > > IP, as you might expect. The controller IP uses that as the trigger to > > transition state in its state machine, which is detailed in > > https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/aemDocuments/documents/FPGA/ProductDocuments/UserGuides/ip_cores/directcores/CoreI2C_HB.pdf > > On page 23, row 0x28, you can see the case that (IIRC) is the > > problematic one. It is impossible to leave this state without triggering > > some sort of action. > > The only way that I could see to make this work correctly was to get the > > driver track whether or not the next message required a repeated start or > > not, so as to transition out of state 0x28 correctly. > > > > Unfortunately, then the clearing of the interrupt bit causing state > > transitions kicked in again - after sending a repeated start, it will > > immediately attempt to act (see state 0x10 on page 23). Without > > reworking the driver to send entire transfers "in one go" (where the > > completion is that of the transfer rather than the message as it > > currently is) the controller will re-send the last target address + > > read/write command it sent, instead of the next one. That's why there's > > so many changes outside of the interrupt handler and so many additional > > members in the controller's private data structure. > > > > I hope that that at least makes some sense.. > > > > > The driver > > > should do repeated start when it should do repeated start. > > > > Yup, that's what I'm trying to do here :) > > I'd like to get this fix in, and Andi only had some minor comments that > didn't require a respin. I don't want to respin or resend while this > conversation remains unresolved. Could you please respond to this thread? I don't want to respin without resolving this conversation since I feel like we'd just end up having it all over again. Thanks, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
