On 24/09/20 8:27 am, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 04.09.2020 02:28, Chris Packham wrote:
>> The SPIE register contains counts for the TX FIFO so any time the irq
>> handler was invoked we would attempt to process the RX/TX fifos. Use the
>> SPIM value to mask the events so that we only process interrupts that
>> were expected.
>>
>> This was a latent issue exposed by commit 3282a3da25bd ("powerpc/64:
>> Implement soft interrupt replay in C").
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>>
>> Notes:
>> I've tested this on a T2080RDB and a custom board using the T2081 SoC. With
>> this change I don't see any spurious instances of the "Transfer done but
>> SPIE_DON isn't set!" or "Transfer done but rx/tx fifo's aren't empty!" messages
>> and the updates to spi flash are successful.
>>
>> I think this should go into the stable trees that contain 3282a3da25bd but I
>> haven't added a Fixes: tag because I think 3282a3da25bd exposed the issue as
>> opposed to causing it.
>>
>> drivers/spi/spi-fsl-espi.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-fsl-espi.c b/drivers/spi/spi-fsl-espi.c
>> index 7e7c92cafdbb..cb120b68c0e2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-fsl-espi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-fsl-espi.c
>> @@ -574,13 +574,14 @@ static void fsl_espi_cpu_irq(struct fsl_espi *espi, u32 events)
>> static irqreturn_t fsl_espi_irq(s32 irq, void *context_data)
>> {
>> struct fsl_espi *espi = context_data;
>> - u32 events;
>> + u32 events, mask;
>>
>> spin_lock(&espi->lock);
>>
>> /* Get interrupt events(tx/rx) */
>> events = fsl_espi_read_reg(espi, ESPI_SPIE);
>> - if (!events) {
>> + mask = fsl_espi_read_reg(espi, ESPI_SPIM);
>> + if (!(events & mask)) {
>> spin_unlock(&espi->lock);
>> return IRQ_NONE;
> Sorry, I was on vacation and therefore couldn't comment earlier.
> I'm fine with the change, just one thing could be improved IMO.
> If we skip an unneeded interrupt now, then returning IRQ_NONE
> causes reporting this interrupt as spurious. This isn't too nice
> as spurious interrupts typically are seen as a problem indicator.
> Therefore returning IRQ_HANDLED should be more appropriate.
> This would just require a comment in the code explaining why we
> do this, and why it can happen that we receive interrupts
> we're not interested in.
I'd be happy to send a follow-up to change IRQ_NONE to IRQ_HANDLED. I
don't think the old code could have ever hit the IRQ_NONE (because event
will always be non-zero) so it won't really be a change in behaviour.
With the patch (that is now in spi/for-next) so far I do see a low
number of spurious interrupts on the test setup where previously I would
have seen failure to talk to the spi-flash.
