All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
Cc: ben-linux@fluff.org, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: omap: ensure writes to dev->buf_len are ordered
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 23:23:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121101222316.GC22956@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1351155648-20429-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1700 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:00:48PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> if we allow compiler reorder our writes, we could
> fall into a situation where dev->buf_len is reset
> for no apparent reason.
> 
> This bug was found with a simple script which would
> transfer data to an i2c client from 1 to 1024 bytes
> (a simple for loop), when we got to transfer sizes
> bigger than the fifo size, dev->buf_len was reset
> to zero before we had an oportunity to handle XDR
> Interrupt. Because dev->buf_len was zero, we entered
> omap_i2c_transmit_data() to transfer zero bytes,
> which would mean we would just silently exit
> omap_i2c_transmit_data() without actually writing
> anything to DATA register. That would cause XDR
> IRQ to trigger forever and we would never transfer
> the remaining bytes.
> 
> After adding the memory barrier, we also drop resetting
> dev->buf_len to zero in omap_i2c_xfer_msg() because
> both omap_i2c_transmit_data() and omap_i2c_receive_data()
> will act until dev->buf_len reaches zero, rendering the
> other write in omap_i2c_xfer_msg() redundant.
> 
> This patch has been tested with pandaboard for a few
> iterations of the script mentioned above.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
> ---
> 
> This bug has been there forever, but it's quite annoying.
> I think it deserves being pushed upstream during this -rc
> cycle, but if Wolfram decides to wait until v3.8, I don't
> mind.

I would add this into 3.7, but what about the comments suggesting to use
barrier()?

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: w.sang@pengutronix.de (Wolfram Sang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] i2c: omap: ensure writes to dev->buf_len are ordered
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 23:23:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121101222316.GC22956@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1351155648-20429-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com>

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:00:48PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> if we allow compiler reorder our writes, we could
> fall into a situation where dev->buf_len is reset
> for no apparent reason.
> 
> This bug was found with a simple script which would
> transfer data to an i2c client from 1 to 1024 bytes
> (a simple for loop), when we got to transfer sizes
> bigger than the fifo size, dev->buf_len was reset
> to zero before we had an oportunity to handle XDR
> Interrupt. Because dev->buf_len was zero, we entered
> omap_i2c_transmit_data() to transfer zero bytes,
> which would mean we would just silently exit
> omap_i2c_transmit_data() without actually writing
> anything to DATA register. That would cause XDR
> IRQ to trigger forever and we would never transfer
> the remaining bytes.
> 
> After adding the memory barrier, we also drop resetting
> dev->buf_len to zero in omap_i2c_xfer_msg() because
> both omap_i2c_transmit_data() and omap_i2c_receive_data()
> will act until dev->buf_len reaches zero, rendering the
> other write in omap_i2c_xfer_msg() redundant.
> 
> This patch has been tested with pandaboard for a few
> iterations of the script mentioned above.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
> ---
> 
> This bug has been there forever, but it's quite annoying.
> I think it deserves being pushed upstream during this -rc
> cycle, but if Wolfram decides to wait until v3.8, I don't
> mind.

I would add this into 3.7, but what about the comments suggesting to use
barrier()?

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20121101/928fba26/attachment.sig>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-11-01 22:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-25  9:00 [PATCH] i2c: omap: ensure writes to dev->buf_len are ordered Felipe Balbi
2012-10-25  9:00 ` Felipe Balbi
     [not found] ` <1351155648-20429-1-git-send-email-balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-25  9:16   ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2012-10-25  9:16     ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2012-10-26 23:01   ` Paul Walmsley
2012-10-26 23:01     ` Paul Walmsley
2012-10-27 10:50     ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-10-27 10:50       ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-10-27 15:59       ` Paul Walmsley
2012-10-27 15:59         ` Paul Walmsley
     [not found]         ` <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210271545390.16409-rwI8Ez+7Ko+d5PgPZx9QOdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-28  4:11           ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-10-28  4:11             ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-10-25 16:38 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-25 16:38   ` Kevin Hilman
     [not found]   ` <8739124idt.fsf-1D3HCaltpLuhEniVeURVKkEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-25 18:03     ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-25 18:03       ` Felipe Balbi
2012-11-01 22:23 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2012-11-01 22:23   ` Wolfram Sang
     [not found]   ` <20121101222316.GC22956-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-11-02  8:54     ` Felipe Balbi
2012-11-02  8:54       ` Felipe Balbi
     [not found]       ` <20121102085447.GE17063-S8G//mZuvNWo5Im9Ml3/Zg@public.gmane.org>
2012-11-05  8:04         ` [PATCH v2] " Felipe Balbi
2012-11-05  8:04           ` Felipe Balbi
2012-11-14 11:20           ` Wolfram Sang
2012-11-14 11:20             ` Wolfram Sang
     [not found]             ` <20121114112050.GG5954-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-11-14 14:22               ` [PATCH v3] " Felipe Balbi
2012-11-14 14:22                 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-11-14 16:46                 ` Wolfram Sang
2012-11-14 16:46                   ` Wolfram Sang

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=20121101222316.GC22956@pengutronix.de \
    --to=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=balbi@ti.com \
    --cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    /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.