On 2/11/23 16:18, Radoslaw Biernacki wrote:
> 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.Kornel
>>>> 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.
Absolutely! Thanks a lot Kornel!
