All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Albrecht Dreß" <albrecht.dress@arcor.de>
To: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Cc: Linux PPC Development <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
	Devicetree Discussions <devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/2] 5200: improve i2c bus error recovery
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:21:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1264450925.2315.0@antares> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100125040653.GS10014@trinity.fluff.org> (from ben-linux@fluff.org on Mon Jan 25 05:06:53 2010)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2746 bytes --]

Am 25.01.10 05:06 schrieb(en) Ben Dooks:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 09:17:55PM +0100, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
>> Improve the recovery of the MPC5200B's I2C bus from errors like bus hangs.
> 
> This is very sparse comapred to the large comment below the --- line, maybe some more description should be living up here.

Hmm, that was my interpretation of #15 in Documentation/SubmittingPatches... ;-)  Maybe it should read

<snip>
Improve the recovery of the MPC5200B's I2C bus from errors like bus hangs.  This includes making the bus timeout configurable, a better detection of cases where the bus has to be "fixed" after a timeout, and a more thorough fixup sequence.
</snip>

> Is thios a candidate for an -rc or should it be left to merge window?

Well, basically it was a rfc.  I apparently need it on my 5200B board, but I hoped to get some more insight from the Freescale/I2C gurus (see "open questions" in the post).  Thus merge window, IMHO...

Thanks, Albrecht.

> 
> > Signed-off-by: Albrecht Dreß <albrecht.dress@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.
> >
> > 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
[snip]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Albrecht Dreß" <albrecht.dress@arcor.de>
To: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Cc: Linux PPC Development <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
	Devicetree Discussions <devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/2] 5200: improve i2c bus error recovery
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:21:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1264450925.2315.0@antares> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100125040653.GS10014@trinity.fluff.org> (from ben-linux@fluff.org on Mon Jan 25 05:06:53 2010)


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2746 bytes --]

Am 25.01.10 05:06 schrieb(en) Ben Dooks:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 09:17:55PM +0100, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
>> Improve the recovery of the MPC5200B's I2C bus from errors like bus hangs.
> 
> This is very sparse comapred to the large comment below the --- line, maybe some more description should be living up here.

Hmm, that was my interpretation of #15 in Documentation/SubmittingPatches... ;-)  Maybe it should read

<snip>
Improve the recovery of the MPC5200B's I2C bus from errors like bus hangs.  This includes making the bus timeout configurable, a better detection of cases where the bus has to be "fixed" after a timeout, and a more thorough fixup sequence.
</snip>

> Is thios a candidate for an -rc or should it be left to merge window?

Well, basically it was a rfc.  I apparently need it on my 5200B board, but I hoped to get some more insight from the Freescale/I2C gurus (see "open questions" in the post).  Thus merge window, IMHO...

Thanks, Albrecht.

> 
> > Signed-off-by: Albrecht Dreß <albrecht.dress@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.
> >
> > 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
[snip]

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 150 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

  reply	other threads:[~2010-01-25 20:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-01-22 20:17 [PATCH/RFC 1/2] 5200: improve i2c bus error recovery Albrecht Dreß
2010-01-22 20:17 ` Albrecht Dreß
2010-01-25  4:06 ` Ben Dooks
2010-01-25  4:06   ` Ben Dooks
2010-01-25 20:21   ` Albrecht Dreß [this message]
2010-01-25 20:21     ` Albrecht Dreß
2010-02-16 19:31 ` Grant Likely
2010-02-16 19:31   ` Grant Likely
2010-02-16 20:02   ` Albrecht Dreß
2010-02-16 20:02     ` Albrecht Dreß
2010-02-16 19:49 ` Ira W. Snyder
2010-02-16 19:49   ` Ira W. Snyder
2010-02-16 20:14   ` Albrecht Dreß
2010-02-16 20:14     ` Albrecht Dreß

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1264450925.2315.0@antares \
    --to=albrecht.dress@arcor.de \
    --cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
    --cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.