[PATCH/RFC 1/2] 5200: improve i2c bus error recovery
Grant Likely
grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Wed Feb 17 06:31:27 EST 2010
Hi Albrecht,
Comments below.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Albrecht Dreß <albrecht.dress at arcor.de> wrote:
> Improve the recovery of the MPC5200B's I2C bus from errors like bus
> hangs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Albrecht Dreß <albrecht.dress at arcor.de>
>
> ---
>
> This patch introduces several improvements to the MPC5200B's I2C driver
> as to improve the recovery from error conditions I encountered when
> testing a custom board with several I2C devices attached (eeprom, io
> expander, rtc, sensors). The error conditions included cases where the
> bus if logic of one slave apparently went south, blocking the bus
> completely.
>
> My fixes include:
> 1. make the bus timeout configurable in fsl_i2c_probe(); the default of
> one second is *way* too long for my use case;
> 2. if a timeout condition occurs in mpc_xfer(), mpc_i2c_fixup() the bus
> if *any* of the CF, BB and RXAK flags in the MSR is 1. I actually
> saw different combinations with hangs, not only all three set;
> 3. improve the fixup procedure by calculating the timing needed from the
> real (configured) bus clock, calculated in mpc_i2c_setclock_52xx().
> Furthermore, I issue 9 instead of one cycle, as I experienced cases
> where the single one is not enough (found this tip in a forum). As a
> side effect, the new scheme needs only 81us @375kHz bus clock instead
> of 150us. I recorded waveforms for 18.4kHz, 85.9kHz and 375kHz, all
> looking fine, which I can provide if anyone is interested.
These are three separate fixes. Ideally you should submit them in
separate patches to make it easy on poor old reviewers like me. And,
as Ben mentions, this descriptions should be above the '---' line so
it appears in the commit text.
>
> Open questions:
> - is the approach correct at all, in particular the interpretation of
> the flags (#2)?
> - could this code also be used on non-5200 processors?
>
> --- linux-2.6.32-orig/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c 2009-12-03 04:51:21.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.32/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c 2010-01-22 16:05:13.000000000 +0100
> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ struct mpc_i2c {
> wait_queue_head_t queue;
> struct i2c_adapter adap;
> int irq;
> + u32 real_clk;
> };
>
> struct mpc_i2c_divider {
> @@ -97,16 +98,32 @@ static irqreturn_t mpc_i2c_isr(int irq,
> */
> static void mpc_i2c_fixup(struct mpc_i2c *i2c)
> {
> - writeccr(i2c, 0);
> - udelay(30);
> - writeccr(i2c, CCR_MEN);
> - udelay(30);
> - writeccr(i2c, CCR_MSTA | CCR_MTX);
> - udelay(30);
> - writeccr(i2c, CCR_MSTA | CCR_MTX | CCR_MEN);
> - udelay(30);
> - writeccr(i2c, CCR_MEN);
> - udelay(30);
> + if (i2c->real_clk == 0) {
> + writeccr(i2c, 0);
> + udelay(30);
> + writeccr(i2c, CCR_MEN);
> + udelay(30);
> + writeccr(i2c, CCR_MSTA | CCR_MTX);
> + udelay(30);
> + writeccr(i2c, CCR_MSTA | CCR_MTX | CCR_MEN);
> + udelay(30);
> + writeccr(i2c, CCR_MEN);
> + udelay(30);
> + } else {
> + int k;
> + u32 delay_val = 1000000 / i2c->real_clk + 1;
> +
> + if (delay_val < 2)
> + delay_val = 2;
> +
> + for (k = 9; k; k--) {
> + writeccr(i2c, 0);
> + writeccr(i2c, CCR_MSTA | CCR_MTX | CCR_MEN);
> + udelay(delay_val);
> + writeccr(i2c, CCR_MEN);
> + udelay(delay_val << 1);
> + }
> + }
This doesn't look right. Why is the old code being preserved? Isn't
it not as reliable? It looks to me that the new block should be the
only path, with delay_val getting hard set to a sane value if real_clk
== 0. This approach looks to add complexity to the driver without a
reason other than fear it *might* breaking something.
If the new code is better, then be strong, stand tall, and say in a
loud voice, "this old code is crap. The new stuff is much better."
g.
> }
>
> static int i2c_wait(struct mpc_i2c *i2c, unsigned timeout, int writing)
> @@ -186,15 +203,18 @@ static const struct mpc_i2c_divider mpc_
> {10240, 0x9d}, {12288, 0x9e}, {15360, 0x9f}
> };
>
> -int mpc_i2c_get_fdr_52xx(struct device_node *node, u32 clock, int prescaler)
> +int mpc_i2c_get_fdr_52xx(struct device_node *node, u32 clock, int prescaler,
> + u32 *real_clk)
> {
> const struct mpc_i2c_divider *div = NULL;
> unsigned int pvr = mfspr(SPRN_PVR);
> u32 divider;
> int i;
>
> - if (!clock)
> + if (!clock) {
> + *real_clk = 0;
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> /* Determine divider value */
> divider = mpc5xxx_get_bus_frequency(node) / clock;
> @@ -212,7 +232,8 @@ int mpc_i2c_get_fdr_52xx(struct device_n
> break;
> }
>
> - return div ? (int)div->fdr : -EINVAL;
> + *real_clk = mpc5xxx_get_bus_frequency(node) / div->divider;
> + return (int)div->fdr;
> }
>
> static void mpc_i2c_setclock_52xx(struct device_node *node,
> @@ -221,13 +242,14 @@ static void mpc_i2c_setclock_52xx(struct
> {
> int ret, fdr;
>
> - ret = mpc_i2c_get_fdr_52xx(node, clock, prescaler);
> + ret = mpc_i2c_get_fdr_52xx(node, clock, prescaler, &i2c->real_clk);
> fdr = (ret >= 0) ? ret : 0x3f; /* backward compatibility */
>
> writeb(fdr & 0xff, i2c->base + MPC_I2C_FDR);
>
> if (ret >= 0)
> - dev_info(i2c->dev, "clock %d Hz (fdr=%d)\n", clock, fdr);
> + dev_info(i2c->dev, "clock %u Hz (fdr=%d)\n", i2c->real_clk,
> + fdr);
> }
> #else /* !CONFIG_PPC_MPC52xx */
> static void mpc_i2c_setclock_52xx(struct device_node *node,
> @@ -446,10 +468,14 @@ static int mpc_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *
> return -EINTR;
> }
> if (time_after(jiffies, orig_jiffies + HZ)) {
> + u8 status = readb(i2c->base + MPC_I2C_SR);
> +
> dev_dbg(i2c->dev, "timeout\n");
> - if (readb(i2c->base + MPC_I2C_SR) ==
> - (CSR_MCF | CSR_MBB | CSR_RXAK))
> + if ((status & (CSR_MCF | CSR_MBB | CSR_RXAK)) != 0) {
> + writeb(status & ~CSR_MAL,
> + i2c->base + MPC_I2C_SR);
> mpc_i2c_fixup(i2c);
> + }
> return -EIO;
> }
> schedule();
> @@ -540,6 +566,14 @@ static int __devinit fsl_i2c_probe(struc
> }
> }
>
> + prop = of_get_property(op->node, "timeout", &plen);
> + if (prop && plen == sizeof(u32)) {
> + mpc_ops.timeout = *prop * HZ / 1000000;
> + if (mpc_ops.timeout < 5)
> + mpc_ops.timeout = 5;
> + }
> + dev_info(i2c->dev, "timeout %u us\n", mpc_ops.timeout * 1000000 / HZ);
> +
> dev_set_drvdata(&op->dev, i2c);
>
> i2c->adap = mpc_ops;
>
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
>
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list