On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>
> No apparent change in behavior, the first write test resulted in:
> [ 842.830802] sd 2:0:1:0: [sdb] tag#0 53c80 registers not accessible, device will be reset
> [ 842.830802] sd 2:0:1:0: [sdb] tag#0 switching to slow handshake
>
> Checking for IRQ after poll_politely2 does not seem right because we can
> miss the buffer ready signal.
>
How so? As long as there's no gated IRQ, we poll for buffer readiness
until timeout. And when there is a gated IRQ, we break both the polling
loop and the transfer loop immediately. Your code and mine are basically
in agreement here.
> According to my tests, buffer ready signal is most important - if there
> is any data to read/write, do the transfer. If not, only then check why
> - maybe we got an IRQ (that terminated PDMA). Or no IRQ, sometimes the
> wait for buffer ready times out - we need to terminate PDMA manually
> then (reset).
>
> Then 53C80 registers should become ready.
>
You seem to be saying that we should ignore the IRQ signal if the buffers
have become ready. Maybe so. Can we try simply resetting the block
counter? (I could imagine that the 53c400 core might leave the 53c80
registers inaccessible unless we keep accessing the buffers in the 53c400
core until the transfer is done.)
BTW, with regard to your patch, note that this construct is race prone:
while (1) { /* monitor IRQ while waiting for host buffer */
csr = NCR5380_read(hostdata->c400_ctl_status);
if (!(csr & CSR_HOST_BUF_NOT_RDY))
break;
if (csr & CSR_GATED_53C80_IRQ) {
basr = NCR5380_read(BUS_AND_STATUS_REG);
if (!(basr & BASR_PHASE_MATCH) ||
(basr & BASR_BUSY_ERROR)) {
printk("basr=0x%02x csr=0x%02x at start=%d\n", basr, csr, start);
goto out_wait;
}
}
if (retries-- < 1) {
shost_printk(KERN_ERR, hostdata->host, "53C400r: host buffer not ready in time\n");
NCR5380_write(hostdata->c400_ctl_status, CSR_RESET);
NCR5380_write(hostdata->c400_ctl_status, CSR_BASE);
goto out_wait;
}
}
This code can "goto out_wait" when !(csr & CSR_HOST_BUF_NOT_RDY). It
depends on timing. This would seem to be contrary to your stated aim.
Moreover, this code can also "break" when (csr & CSR_GATED_53C80_IRQ).
That depends on timing too. But this may be an improvement on my code if
it allows the 53c80 registers to become accessible, by allowing the block
counter to be decremented.
The uncertainty here was one of the reasons I reworked this code.
> This is a log from writing 230 MB file using my code with some debug
> prints, on a NCR53C400. No 53C80 timeouts, only disconnects and some
> host buffer timeouts (maybe the drive sometimes just slows down without
> disconnecting?)
>
> [ 3378.503828] basr=0x10 csr=0xd5 at start=512
> [ 3461.257973] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3840
> [ 3461.838225] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3840
> [ 3462.683446] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3840
> [ 3463.416911] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3840
> [ 3465.117804] scsi host2: 53C400w: host buffer not ready in time
> [ 3465.276375] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3328
> [ 3466.457701] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1792
> [ 3467.019643] scsi host2: 53C400w: host buffer not ready in time
> [ 3467.619058] scsi host2: 53C400w: host buffer not ready in time
> [ 3467.799619] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3840
> [ 3552.123501] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=2304
> [ 3552.771223] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1280
> [ 3554.556451] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=2816
> [ 3555.229646] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1792
> [ 3555.630632] scsi host2: 53C400w: host buffer not ready in time
> [ 3555.774560] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=768
> [ 3625.541608] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3328
> [ 3640.099861] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1792
> [ 3641.442671] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=2816
> [ 3641.865469] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=768
> [ 3642.939223] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1280
> [ 3643.356858] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3328
> [ 3643.701636] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3840
> [ 3645.153405] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=2304
> [ 3646.135642] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1280
> [ 3647.007321] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=2816
> [ 3648.065874] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3328
> [ 3650.071961] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1280
> [ 3650.827630] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1792
> [ 3651.827011] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=2816
> [ 3652.559984] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=2816
> [ 3653.203566] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3328
> [ 3653.594376] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1280
> [ 3653.903437] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3840
> [ 3654.305753] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1792
> [ 3654.676009] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=2304
> [ 3655.367686] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=2816
> [ 3655.733854] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=768
> [ 3656.075023] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=3328
> [ 3656.493046] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=2816
> [ 3657.208089] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1280
> [ 3657.537223] w basr=0x10 csr=0x95 at start=1280
>
> And this is from reading the file back:
> [ 3799.053067] basr=0x10 csr=0xd5 at start=512
> [ 3801.056337] basr=0x10 csr=0xd5 at start=3584
> [ 3976.323836] scsi host2: 53C400r: host buffer not ready in time
> [ 3976.404699] basr=0x10 csr=0xd5 at start=512
> [ 3977.800647] basr=0x10 csr=0xd5 at start=512
> [ 3979.240611] scsi host2: 53C400r: host buffer not ready in time
> [ 3979.320698] basr=0x10 csr=0xd5 at start=512
> [ 3980.040220] scsi host2: 53C400r: host buffer not ready in time
> [ 3980.096401] basr=0x10 csr=0xd5 at start=512
> [ 3980.394854] scsi host2: 53C400r: host buffer not ready in time
>
The register values look normal (?)
Anyway, there are only a few material differences between your code and
this patch series.
1) Your code does not break the transfer loop for any Gated IRQ, but only
for a phase error IRQ. My version responds to any Gated IRQ, as per the
algorithm in the datasheet. Your code seems to assume that the 53c80
registers are accessible whenever gated IRQ is set, which seems
unlikely.
2) My code fails the transfer when the 53c80 registers don't become
accessible, which is why you see a fallback to PIO (slow handshake).
3) We use different timeouts.
4) In my code, the race condition applies only after the timeout has
already expired, so it's inconsequential.
Please apply the patch below (on top of this series) so we can perhaps
narrow this down a bit.
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/g_NCR5380.c b/drivers/scsi/g_NCR5380.c
index 28233ec49fdc..2e8ff001af46 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/g_NCR5380.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/g_NCR5380.c
@@ -526,6 +526,8 @@ static inline int generic_NCR5380_pread(struct NCR5380_hostdata *hostdata,
NCR5380_write(hostdata->c400_blk_cnt, len / 128);
for (start = 0; start < len; start += 128) {
+ udelay(500);
+
if (NCR5380_poll_politely2(hostdata, hostdata->c400_ctl_status,
CSR_HOST_BUF_NOT_RDY, 0,
hostdata->c400_ctl_status,
@@ -549,7 +551,7 @@ static inline int generic_NCR5380_pread(struct NCR5380_hostdata *hostdata,
}
hostdata->pdma_residual = NCR5380_read(hostdata->c400_blk_cnt) * 128;
-
+ NCR5380_write(hostdata->c400_blk_cnt, 0);
result = wait_for_53c80_access(hostdata);
if (hostdata->pdma_residual == 0 &&
@@ -581,6 +583,8 @@ static inline int generic_NCR5380_pwrite(struct NCR5380_hostdata *hostdata,
NCR5380_write(hostdata->c400_blk_cnt, len / 128);
for (start = 0; start < len; start += 128) {
+ udelay(500);
+
if (NCR5380_poll_politely2(hostdata, hostdata->c400_ctl_status,
CSR_HOST_BUF_NOT_RDY, 0,
hostdata->c400_ctl_status,
@@ -604,7 +608,7 @@ static inline int generic_NCR5380_pwrite(struct NCR5380_hostdata *hostdata,
}
hostdata->pdma_residual = NCR5380_read(hostdata->c400_blk_cnt) * 128;
-
+ NCR5380_write(hostdata->c400_blk_cnt, 0);
result = wait_for_53c80_access(hostdata);
if (hostdata->pdma_residual == 0) {
