On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 3:07 PM Kornel Dulęba <korneld@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 01:01:22PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > On 2/11/23 11:21, Kornel Dulęba wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 8:31 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 27/10/23 17:56, Kornel Dulęba wrote:
> > >>> This fix addresses a stale task completion event issued right after the
> > >>> CQE recovery. As it's a hardware issue the fix is done in form of a
> > >>> quirk.
> > >>>
> > >>> When error interrupt is received the driver runs recovery logic is run.
> > >>> It halts the controller, clears all pending tasks, and then re-enables
> > >>> it. On some platforms a stale task completion event is observed,
> > >>> regardless of the CQHCI_CLEAR_ALL_TASKS bit being set.
> > >>>
> > >>> This results in either:
> > >>> a) Spurious TC completion event for an empty slot.
> > >>> b) Corrupted data being passed up the stack, as a result of premature
> > >>> completion for a newly added task.
> > >>>
> > >>> To fix that re-enable the controller, clear task completion bits,
> > >>> interrupt status register and halt it again.
> > >>> This is done at the end of the recovery process, right before interrupts
> > >>> are re-enabled.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Kornel Dulęba <korneld@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> drivers/mmc/host/cqhci-core.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>> drivers/mmc/host/cqhci.h | 1 +
> > >>> 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/cqhci-core.c b/drivers/mmc/host/cqhci-core.c
> > >>> index b3d7d6d8d654..e534222df90c 100644
> > >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/cqhci-core.c
> > >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/cqhci-core.c
> > >>> @@ -1062,6 +1062,45 @@ static void cqhci_recover_mrqs(struct cqhci_host *cq_host)
> > >>> /* CQHCI could be expected to clear it's internal state pretty quickly */
> > >>> #define CQHCI_CLEAR_TIMEOUT 20
> > >>>
> > >>> +/*
> > >>> + * During CQE recovery all pending tasks are cleared from the
> > >>> + * controller and its state is being reset.
> > >>> + * On some platforms the controller sets a task completion bit for
> > >>> + * a stale(previously cleared) task right after being re-enabled.
> > >>> + * This results in a spurious interrupt at best and corrupted data
> > >>> + * being passed up the stack at worst. The latter happens when
> > >>> + * the driver enqueues a new request on the problematic task slot
> > >>> + * before the "spurious" task completion interrupt is handled.
> > >>> + * To fix it:
> > >>> + * 1. Re-enable controller by clearing the halt flag.
> > >>> + * 2. Clear interrupt status and the task completion register.
> > >>> + * 3. Halt the controller again to be consistent with quirkless logic.
> > >>> + *
> > >>> + * This assumes that there are no pending requests on the queue.
> > >>> + */
> > >>> +static void cqhci_quirk_clear_stale_tc(struct cqhci_host *cq_host)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> + u32 reg;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + WARN_ON(cq_host->qcnt);
> > >>> + cqhci_writel(cq_host, 0, CQHCI_CTL);
> > >>> + if ((cqhci_readl(cq_host, CQHCI_CTL) & CQHCI_HALT)) {
> > >>> + pr_err("%s: cqhci: CQE failed to exit halt state\n",
> > >>> + mmc_hostname(cq_host->mmc));
> > >>> + }
> > >>> + reg = cqhci_readl(cq_host, CQHCI_TCN);
> > >>> + cqhci_writel(cq_host, reg, CQHCI_TCN);
> > >>> + reg = cqhci_readl(cq_host, CQHCI_IS);
> > >>> + cqhci_writel(cq_host, reg, CQHCI_IS);
> > >>> +
> > >>> + /*
> > >>> + * Halt the controller again.
> > >>> + * This is only needed so that we're consistent across quirk
> > >>> + * and quirkless logic.
> > >>> + */
> > >>> + cqhci_halt(cq_host->mmc, CQHCI_FINISH_HALT_TIMEOUT);
> > >>> +}
> > >>
> > >> Thanks a lot for tracking this down!
> > >>
> > >> It could be that the "un-halt" starts a task, so it would be
> > >> better to force the "clear" to work if possible, which
> > >> should be the case if CQE is disabled.
> > >>
> > >> Would you mind trying the code below? Note the increased
> > >> CQHCI_START_HALT_TIMEOUT helps avoid trying to clear tasks
> > >> when CQE has not halted.
> > >
> > > I've run a quick test and it works just fine.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > > Your approach looks better than what I proposed, since as you
> > > mentioned, doing it like this avoids some weird side effects, e.g. DMA
> > > to freed memory.
> > > Do you plan to include it in the other series that you posted yesterday?
> >
> > Yes I will do that
>
> Feel free to add "Tested-by: Kornel Dulęba <korneld@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" and
> maybe "Reported-by".
I do not want to be you advocate Kornel, but I think you earned a
Co-developed-by
That was a lot of work.
