Hey Andy,
On 29-03-17 11:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Olliver Schinagl <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07-02-17 00:30, Douglas Anderson wrote:
First of all I didn't get why people from Cc list are suddenly
disappeared. Check your mail client settings.
Returning back some of them.
Appologies, I replied via gmane's news feed to Douglas's initial post as
I did not have the original post and I failed to check the other
recipients. My fault. Sorry. I've added the original others as well.
It appears that somehow we have a RX Timeout interrupt but there is no
actual data present to receive. When we're in this state the UART
driver claims that it handled the interrupt but it actually doesn't
really do anything. This means that we keep getting the interrupt
over and over again.
I may be running into the same thing on an A20 SoC, but still in the stage
of figuring out what is going on, as we get this error very occasionally. Do
you have a way to externally induce this behavior other then suspend/resume?
As we get it during uart-use and do not have (or I have never tried)
suspend/resume on our platform.
On Intel platforms with this IP I can see similar when run loopback
test on high speeds.
California may correct me since he did a lot of investigation of the
issue on x86.
static int dw8250_handle_irq(struct uart_port *p)
{
+ struct uart_8250_port *up = up_to_u8250p(p);
struct dw8250_data *d = p->private_data;
unsigned int iir = p->serial_in(p, UART_IIR);
+ unsigned int status;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ /*
+ * There are ways to get Designware-based UARTs into a state where
+ * they are asserting UART_IIR_RX_TIMEOUT but there is no actual
+ * data available. If we see such a case then we'll do a bogus
+ * read. If we don't do this then the "RX TIMEOUT" interrupt will
+ * fire forever.
I think what you are saying is 'do a bogus read as that is the only way to
clear the interrupt, otherwise it will keep firing forever.'?
No, we don't know if this _the only way_. It looks like no one from us
can tell you a root cause, except may be Synopsys guys.
Has anybody tried to contact synopsis/dw about this issue at all?
true, it is not the only way (maybe only as far as we know for now) but
it is 'the' way currently.
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&p->lock, flags);
this is a bit above my knowledge of driver etc, but I don't any spinlocks in
the 8250 handle_irq glue drivers, except in the OMAP's case where they are
handeling a DMA IRQ. So I ask, because I don't know, why is it needed here?
They serialize IO accessors.
Regarding to the rest comments, the patch is already in upstream, if
you feel that something should be changed, send an incremental fix.
Ah, I thought I checked, but thought I didn't see it. I'll probably
forgot to fetch. I'll send a patch for the small mask fix.
Once I found a way to reproduce the problem (without suspend) I will test
this to see if it fixes it for us too.
It would be appreciated, but better to get know the root cause and
what _hardware_ guys think about solutions.
I read over the docs of the IP block (I know a little FPGA programming)
(dw_apb_uart of 2006) but found nothing yet that would warn for this
behavior. I suppose hardware/fgpa guys can give more background here
potentially, but it may also be simply an IP bug?
Olliver
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
