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;
Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:58:44 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To:     Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>, linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Vernon Mauery <vernon.mauery@linux.intel.com>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric?= Le Goater <clg@kaod.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        James Feist <james.feist@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH i2c-next v6] i2c: aspeed: Handle master/slave combined
 irq events properly
Message-ID: <20180912195844.GA6893@roeck-us.net>
References: <20180823225731.19063-1-jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
 <20180911183734.GA21976@roeck-us.net>
 <1f34fe8c-69ef-5f2d-25dc-d5f6037cc558@linux.intel.com>
 <20180911204107.GA26017@roeck-us.net>
 <e5135af4-9105-214f-5de2-65cc03804222@linux.intel.com>
 <CACPK8Xdv3aP_zOHAL0WMgwvkpBHAUesU7OdhW==jgvXjRmt-Zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180911233302.GA18799@roeck-us.net>
 <5698ca34-14c9-8d05-c4e6-5acf85ff9d14@linux.intel.com>
 <20180912013449.GA12612@roeck-us.net>
 <7fd98646-fb5a-be4d-ce37-84b74e0fa8b3@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7fd98646-fb5a-be4d-ce37-84b74e0fa8b3@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 09:54:51AM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
> On 9/11/2018 6:34 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 04:58:44PM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
> >>On 9/11/2018 4:33 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>>Looking into the patch, clearing the interrupt status at the end of an
> >>>interrupt handler is always suspicious and tends to result in race
> >>>conditions (because additional interrupts may have arrived while handling
> >>>the existing interrupts, or because interrupt handling itself may trigger
> >>>another interrupt). With that in mind, the following patch fixes the
> >>>problem for me.
> >>>
> >>>Guenter
> >>>
> >>>---
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
> >>>index c258c4d9a4c0..c488e6950b7c 100644
> >>>--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
> >>>+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
> >>>@@ -552,6 +552,8 @@ static irqreturn_t aspeed_i2c_bus_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>>  	spin_lock(&bus->lock);
> >>>  	irq_received = readl(bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
> >>>+	/* Ack all interrupt bits. */
> >>>+	writel(irq_received, bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
> >>>  	irq_remaining = irq_received;
> >>>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE)
> >>>@@ -584,8 +586,6 @@ static irqreturn_t aspeed_i2c_bus_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>>  			"irq handled != irq. expected 0x%08x, but was 0x%08x\n",
> >>>  			irq_received, irq_handled);
> >>>-	/* Ack all interrupt bits. */
> >>>-	writel(irq_received, bus->base + ASPEED_I2C_INTR_STS_REG);
> >>>  	spin_unlock(&bus->lock);
> >>>  	return irq_remaining ? IRQ_NONE : IRQ_HANDLED;
> >>>  }
> >>>
> >>
> >>My intention of putting the code at the end of interrupt handler was,
> >>to reduce possibility of combined irq calls which is explained in this
> >>patch. But YES, I agree with you. It could make a potential race
> >
> >Hmm, yes, but that doesn't explain why it would make sense to acknowledge
> >the interrupt late. The interrupt ack only means "I am going to handle these
> >interrupts". If additional interrupts arrive while the interrupt handler
> >is active, those will have to be acknowledged separately.
> >
> >Sure, there is a risk that an interrupt arrives while the handler is
> >running, and that it is handled but not acknowledged. That can happen
> >with pretty much all interrupt handlers, and there are mitigations to
> >limit the impact (for example, read the interrupt status register in
> >a loop until no more interrupts are pending). But acknowledging
> >an interrupt that was possibly not handled is always bad idea.
> 
> Well, that's generally right but not always. Sometimes that depends on
> hardware and Aspeed I2C is the case.
> 
> This is a description from Aspeed AST2500 datasheet:
>   I2CD10 Interrupt Status Register
>   bit 2 Receive Done Interrupt status
>         S/W needs to clear this status bit to allow next data receiving.
> 
> It means, driver should hold this bit to prevent transition of hardware
> state machine until the driver handles received data, so the bit should
> be cleared at the end of interrupt handler.
> 
That makes sense. Does that apply to the other status bits as well ?
Reason for asking is that the current code actually gets stuck
in transmit, not receive.

Thanks,
Guenter