On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 3:06 PM Heikki Krogerus
<heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Łukasz,
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 11:20:35PM +0000, Łukasz Bartosik wrote:
> > From: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > In a suspend-resume edge case, the OPM is timing out in ucsi_resume and
> > the PPM is getting stuck waiting for a command complete ack. Add a write
> > timeout recovery task that will get us out of this state.
>
> Sorry, I did not realise this before, but this is in practice a fix
> (or workaround) to the driver that you just introduced in the previous
> patch. Please merge it into that.
>
Hi Heikki,
Yes I will merge it. I deliberately sent it as a separate commit for
review so that
it would be easier to see the changes.
> > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Łukasz Bartosik <ukaszb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/cros_ec_ucsi.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 87 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/cros_ec_ucsi.c b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/cros_ec_ucsi.c
> > index c588d9a57643..6daf61e7e62a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/cros_ec_ucsi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/cros_ec_ucsi.c
> > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> >
> > #include <linux/container_of.h>
> > #include <linux/dev_printk.h>
> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> > #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/platform_data/cros_ec_commands.h>
> > @@ -29,6 +30,9 @@
> > */
> > #define WRITE_TMO_MS 5000
> >
> > +/* Number of times to attempt recovery from a write timeout before giving up. */
> > +#define WRITE_TMO_CTR_MAX 5
> > +
> > struct cros_ucsi_data {
> > struct device *dev;
> > struct ucsi *ucsi;
> > @@ -36,6 +40,8 @@ struct cros_ucsi_data {
> > struct cros_ec_device *ec;
> > struct notifier_block nb;
> > struct work_struct work;
> > + struct delayed_work write_tmo;
> > + int tmo_counter;
> >
> > struct completion complete;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > @@ -99,12 +105,43 @@ static int cros_ucsi_async_control(struct ucsi *ucsi, u64 cmd)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int cros_ucsi_sync_control(struct ucsi *ucsi, u64 cmd)
> > +{
> > + struct cros_ucsi_data *udata = ucsi_get_drvdata(ucsi);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = ucsi_sync_control_common(ucsi, cmd);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + /* Successful write. Cancel any pending recovery work. */
> > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&udata->write_tmo);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +out:
>
> This label looks a bit unnecessary to me. How about a switch statement?
>
Good point. I will rework this part of the code to use switch.
Thanks,
Łukasz
> ret = ucsi_sync_control_common(ucsi, cmd);
> switch (ret) {
> case -EBUSY:
> case -ETIMEDOUT:
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&udata->write_tmo);
> schedule_delayed_work(&udata->write_tmo, msecs_to_jiffies(WRITE_TMO_MS));
> break;
> case 0:
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&udata->write_tmo);
> break;
> }
>
> return ret;
>
> > + /* EC may return -EBUSY if CCI.busy is set. Convert this to a timeout.
> > + */
> > + if (ret == -EBUSY)
> > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +
> > + /* Schedule recovery attempt when we timeout or tried to send a command
> > + * while still busy.
> > + */
> > + if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) {
> > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&udata->write_tmo);
> > + schedule_delayed_work(&udata->write_tmo,
> > + msecs_to_jiffies(WRITE_TMO_MS));
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > struct ucsi_operations cros_ucsi_ops = {
> > .read_version = cros_ucsi_read_version,
> > .read_cci = cros_ucsi_read_cci,
> > .read_message_in = cros_ucsi_read_message_in,
> > .async_control = cros_ucsi_async_control,
> > - .sync_control = ucsi_sync_control_common,
> > + .sync_control = cros_ucsi_sync_control,
> > };
> >
> > static void cros_ucsi_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > @@ -118,6 +155,54 @@ static void cros_ucsi_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > ucsi_notify_common(udata->ucsi, cci);
> > }
> >
> > +static void cros_ucsi_write_timeout(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > + struct cros_ucsi_data *udata =
> > + container_of(work, struct cros_ucsi_data, write_tmo.work);
> > + u32 cci;
> > + u64 cmd;
> > +
> > + if (cros_ucsi_read(udata->ucsi, UCSI_CCI, &cci, sizeof(cci))) {
> > + dev_err(udata->dev,
> > + "Reading CCI failed; no write timeout recovery possible.");
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (cci & UCSI_CCI_BUSY) {
> > + udata->tmo_counter++;
> > +
> > + if (udata->tmo_counter <= WRITE_TMO_CTR_MAX)
> > + schedule_delayed_work(&udata->write_tmo,
> > + msecs_to_jiffies(WRITE_TMO_MS));
> > + else
> > + dev_err(udata->dev,
> > + "PPM unresponsive - too many write timeouts.");
> > +
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* No longer busy means we can reset our timeout counter. */
> > + udata->tmo_counter = 0;
> > +
> > + /* Need to ack previous command which may have timed out. */
> > + if (cci & UCSI_CCI_COMMAND_COMPLETE) {
> > + cmd = UCSI_ACK_CC_CI | UCSI_ACK_COMMAND_COMPLETE;
> > + cros_ucsi_async_control(udata->ucsi, &cmd);
> > +
> > + /* Check again after a few seconds that the system has
> > + * recovered to make sure our async write above was successful.
> > + */
> > + schedule_delayed_work(&udata->write_tmo,
> > + msecs_to_jiffies(WRITE_TMO_MS));
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* We recovered from a previous timeout. Treat this as a recovery from
> > + * suspend and call resume.
> > + */
> > + ucsi_resume(udata->ucsi);
> > +}
> > +
> > static int cros_ucsi_event(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > unsigned long host_event, void *_notify)
> > {
> > @@ -162,6 +247,7 @@ static int cros_ucsi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, udata);
> >
> > INIT_WORK(&udata->work, cros_ucsi_work);
> > + INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&udata->write_tmo, cros_ucsi_write_timeout);
> > init_completion(&udata->complete);
> >
> > udata->ucsi = ucsi_create(dev, &cros_ucsi_ops);
>
> thanks,
>
> --
> heikki
