[PATCH] i2c: aspeed: Acknowledge Tx ack late when in SLAVE_READ_PROCESSED

[Quan Nguyen]

On 28/11/2023 06:00, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 15:08 +0700, Quan Nguyen wrote:
>>
>> On 27/11/2023 14:04, Cosmo Chou wrote:
>>> Andrew Jeffery <andrew at codeconstruct.com.au> wrote on Mon, 2023-11-27
>>> at 11:23 AM:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 17:17 +0800, Cosmo Chou wrote:
>>>>> commit 2be6b47211e1 ("i2c: aspeed: Acknowledge most interrupts early
>>>>> in interrupt handler") moved most interrupt acknowledgments to the
>>>>> start of the interrupt handler to avoid race conditions. However,
>>>>> slave Tx ack status shouldn't be cleared before SLAVE_READ_PROCESSED
>>>>> is handled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Acknowledge Tx ack status after handling SLAVE_READ_PROCESSED to fix
>>>>> the problem that the next byte is not sent correctly.
>>>>
>>>> What does this mean in practice? Can you provide more details? It
>>>> sounds like you've seen concrete problems and it would be nice to
>>>> capture what it was that occurred.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> For a normal slave transaction, a master attempts to read out N bytes
>>> from BMC: (BMC addr: 0x20)
>>> [S] [21] [A] [1st_B] [1_ack] [2nd_B] [2_ack] ... [Nth_B] [N] [P]
>>>
>>> T1: when [21] [A]: Both INTR_SLAVE_MATCH and INTR_RX_DONE rise,
>>> INTR_RX_DONE is not cleared until BMC is ready to send the 1st_B:
>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c#L294
>>> That is, BMC stretches the SCL until ready to send the 1st_B.
>>>
>>> T2: when [1_ack]: INTR_TX_ACK rises, but it's cleared at the start of
>>> the ISR, so that BMC does not stretch the SCL, the master continues
>>> to read 2nd_B before BMC is ready to send the 2nd_B.
>>>
>>> To fix this, do not clear INTR_TX_ACK until BMC is ready to send data:
>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c#L302
>>>
>>
>> This looks like the same issue, but we chose to ack them late. Same with
>> INTR_RX_DONE.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210616031046.2317-3-quan@os.amperecomputing.com/
> 
>  From a brief inspection I prefer the descriptions in your series Quan.
> Looks like we dropped the ball a bit there though on the review - can
> you resend your series based on 6.7-rc1 or so and Cc Cosmo?
> 
Yes, sure, I'll rebase on v6.7 and resend the series shortly.
Thanks,
- Quan