Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFqH_51zqxXZeEXDSry9aBwwj4Z7SRzxfKw5Ffzh-2A1UQG2Pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170927213527.31416-1-shawnn@chromium.org> <20171129121123.7zg63mjy7pufokg5@dell>
 <CAFqH_51zqxXZeEXDSry9aBwwj4Z7SRzxfKw5Ffzh-2A1UQG2Pw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Alexandru M Stan <amstan@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:26:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHNYxRyDDJRuoU67bjJ+Osvx9GauSPkwCsRZbknwVOY=rb6SEA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: cros ec: spi: Fix "in progress" error signaling
To:     Enric Balletbo Serra <eballetbo@gmail.com>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Shawn Nematbakhsh <shawnn@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        jonathanh@nvidia.com, Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Enric

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Enric Balletbo Serra
<eballetbo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Cc'ing some more chromium folks.
>
> 2017-11-29 13:11 GMT+01:00 Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>:
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Shawn Nematbakhsh wrote:
>>
>>> For host commands that take a long time to process, cros ec can return
>>> early by signaling a EC_RES_IN_PROGRESS result. The host must then poll
>>> status with EC_CMD_GET_COMMS_STATUS until completion of the command.
>>>
>>> None of the above applies when data link errors are encountered. When
>>> errors such as EC_SPI_PAST_END are encountered during command
>>> transmission, it usually means the command was not received by the EC.
>>> Treating such errors as if they were 'EC_RES_IN_PROGRESS' results is
>>> almost always the wrong decision, and can result in host commands
>>> silently being lost.
>>>
>>> Reported-and-tested-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Nematbakhsh <shawnn@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/mfd/cros_ec_spi.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------=
--------
>>>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>
>> Applied, thanks.
>>
>
> This patch is a bit old and is already applied but I would like to
> discuss an issue that Tomeu found playing with kernelci and a Veyron
> Jaq attached to our lab.
>
> Seems that after this patch, the veyron jaq spits out lots of spi
> tranfer error messages. See full log here [1]
>
>  cros-ec-spi spi0.0: spi transfer failed: -121
>  cros-ec-spi spi0.0: Command xfer error (err:-121)
>  cros-ec-i2c-tunnel ff110000.spi:ec@0:i2c-tunnel: Error transferring
> EC i2c message -121
>
> The issue is random, not always happens, but when happens makes
> cros-ec unusable. Reproduce the issue is easier if CONFIG_SMP is not
> set.
>
> What happens is that the master starts the transmission and the
> cros-ec returns an spi error event (EC_SPI_RX_BAD_DATA  - data is
> 0xfb). The difference between after and before the patch is that now
> the cros-ec does not recover, whereas without this patch after some
> tries it succeeds (note that before the patch the affected code
> returned -EAGAIN whereas now returns -EREMOTEIO)
>
> I think that reverting this patch is NOT the solution, but I don't
> have enough knowledge yet to understand why the cros-ec fails. I need
> to look at the cros-ec firmware to understand better what is
> happening, but meanwhile, thoughts? clues?
>
> An important note is that I did not reproduce the issue on a Veyron
> Minnie, even with CONFIG_SMP disabled.
>
> [1] https://lava.collabora.co.uk/scheduler/job/1085493#L905
>
> Best regards,
>   Enric
>
>> --
>> Lee Jones
>> Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
>> Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs
>> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Would it be possible for you to run "ectool version" on both your
machines? Based on the code the EC is running we might have some hints
on what the differences are.

You can find both ectool and the code the ec runs on
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec/+/firmware-veyron-=
6588.B.
Though I would use ectool from the master branch.

One thing I suspect is different is that veyron_minnie regularly polls
an accelerometer, depending on the userspace you're running it's
possible it unwedged itself with a few accelerometer requests.