On 02/10/18 21:23, Daniel Mack wrote:
> Hi Miquel,
>
> On 2/10/2018 9:25 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 2 Oct 2018
>> 08:46:01 +0200:
>>> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 2 Oct 2018
>>> 00:13:28 +0200:
>
>>>> Also, it looks like complete() is not called until the RDDREQ, WRDREQ
>>>> and WRCMDREQ are cleared in the interrupt handler [1], which is weird.
>>>> Miquel, do you happen to remember why you had to do that?
>>>
>>> The RDDREQ, WRDREQ and WRCMDREQ events might potentially happen while
>>> the interrupts are enabled while we only wait for R/B signalling. This
>>> check is to avoid calling complete() on these situations.
>>
>> Actually Boris is right on the fact that while the intention is good,
>> the writing of [1] is not accurate. Daniel, could you please test if
>> the following diff changes something with your setup, without your
>> patch?
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/marvell_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/marvell_nand.c
>> index bc2ef5209783..c7573ccdbacd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/marvell_nand.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/marvell_nand.c
>> @@ -686,7 +686,7 @@ static irqreturn_t marvell_nfc_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>
>> marvell_nfc_disable_int(nfc, st & NDCR_ALL_INT);
>>
>> - if (!(st & (NDSR_RDDREQ | NDSR_WRDREQ | NDSR_WRCMDREQ)))
>> + if (st & (NDSR_RDY(0) | NDSR_RDY(1)))
>> complete(&nfc->complete);
>>
>> return IRQ_HANDLED;
>
> Yes! That seems to work nicely as a replacement for my patch.
>
> Chris, how is that going on your board?
Looks good to me. I've just re-run stress_{1,2,3} on the custom board
and DB-88F6820-AMC.
