From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: don't return -ENXIO from gmbus xfer
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 20:16:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120520181553.GE5145@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGS+omCnwFf-uKiQewMnprPJ5maSjS9ROeyoRTiYd_JRBjSBiQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:07:46AM -0700, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:10:12PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > ... too much risk for flaky edid transfers.
> > >
> > > This regression has been introduced in
> > >
> > > commit e646d5773572bf52017983d758bdf05777dc5600
> > > Author: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
> > > Date: Fri Mar 30 19:46:38 2012 +0800
> > >
> > > drm/i915/intel_i2c: always wait for IDLE before clearing NAK
> > >
> > > This patch keeps the improved NAK handling on the hw side, but reverts
> > > the change to return -ENXIO in case the gmbus controller reports a
> > > NAK.
> > >
> > > Cc: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
> >
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > Can you please take a look at this one and smash your r-b onto it if you
> > agree?
> >
> > Thanks, Daniel
> >
> > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49518
> > > Reported-and-Tested-by: Julian Simioni <julian.simioni@gmail.com>
> > > Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 7 ++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c
> > > index e04255e..0588d8e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c
> > > @@ -418,10 +418,11 @@ clear_err:
> > > * If no ACK is received during the address phase of a transaction,
> > > * the adapter must report -ENXIO.
> > > * It is not clear what to return if no ACK is received at other times.
> > > - * So, we always return -ENXIO in all NAK cases, to ensure we send
> > > - * it at least during the one case that is specified.
> > > + *
> > > + * Unfortunately we can't afford false positives in returning -ENXIO,
> > > + * hence never return -ENXIO.
> > > */
> > > - ret = -ENXIO;
> > > + ret = i;
>
>
> The bugzilla report shows that in the old case, the gmbus failure was:
> [ 2.528812] vgaarb: device changed decodes:
> PCI:0000:00:02.0,olddecodes=io+mem,decodes=io+mem:owns=io+mem
> [ 2.540753] [drm] GMBUS [i915 gmbus panel] timed out waiting for idle
> [ 2.580813] [drm:intel_panel_get_backlight], get backlight PWM = 0
>
> And now the failure is:
> [ 2.523015] vgaarb: device changed decodes:
> PCI:0000:00:02.0,olddecodes=io+mem,decodes=io+mem:owns=io+mem
> [ 2.534770] [drm] GMBUS [i915 gmbus panel] timed out after NAK
> [ 2.534797] [drm:gmbus_xfer], GMBUS [i915 gmbus panel] NAK for
> addr: 0050 w(1)
> [ 2.534883] [drm:intel_panel_get_backlight], get backlight PWM = 0
>
> From these logs, it looks like in both cases, there is an i2c
> communication error between host and panel. The difference is that:
> * in the old case, the return value was 0, which triggered a silent
> retry (the 40ms gap between GMBUS and PWM messages)
> * but, now that the return value is -ENXIO, the caller does not retry.
>
> Actually, in the 'new' case, there are two errors happening: a NAK and
> then a timeout after the NAK, while waiting for the controller to
> clear the ACTIVE bit. I'm not actually sure what causes "timeout
> after NAK", but I think it means the controller is waiting for entire
> transaction to complete (perhaps the STOP bit after NAK?).
>
> Since this reported issue is happening in this double error path, I'd
> rather a patch that fixes it without disabling the more generic NAK
> path. Maybe something like this:
Hm, good suggestion. This way, if we get a NAK but no issues later on,
we'll still fail faster if gmbus detected that no device is responding.
Which should speed up boot a bit. I'll run this past the bug reporter.
Thanks, Daniel
>
> clear_err:
> /*
> * Wait for bus to IDLE before clearing NAK.
> * If we clear the NAK while bus is still active, then it will stay
> * active and the next transaction may fail.
> */
> + ret = -ENXIO;
> if (wait_for((I915_READ(GMBUS2 + reg_offset) & GMBUS_ACTIVE) == 0,
> - 10))
> + 10)) {
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("GMBUS [%s] timed out after NAK\n",
> adapter->name);
> + ret = -ETIMEDOUT; // Or 0 ?
> + }
>
> /* Toggle the Software Clear Interrupt bit. This has the effect
> * of resetting the GMBUS controller and so clearing the
> * BUS_ERROR raised by the slave's NAK.
> */
> I915_WRITE(GMBUS1 + reg_offset, GMBUS_SW_CLR_INT);
> I915_WRITE(GMBUS1 + reg_offset, 0);
> I915_WRITE(GMBUS0 + reg_offset, 0);
>
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("GMBUS [%s] NAK for addr: %04x %c(%d)\n",
> adapter->name, msgs[i].addr,
> (msgs[i].flags & I2C_M_RD) ? 'r' : 'w', msgs[i].len);
>
> /*
> * If no ACK is received during the address phase of a transaction,
> * the adapter must report -ENXIO.
> * It is not clear what to return if no ACK is received at other times.
> - * So, we always return -ENXIO in all NAK cases, to ensure we send
> - * it at least during the one case that is specified.
> + * So, return -ENXIO for NAK after any byte, unless there was a timeout
> + * while waiting for IDLE after NAK.
> */
> - ret = -ENXIO;
> goto out;
>
> -Daniel
>
> >
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > timeout:
> > > --
> > > 1.7.10
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch
> > Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
--
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-20 18:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-14 5:56 [PATCH] drm/i915: don't return -ENXIO from gmbus xfer Daniel Vetter
2012-05-19 20:10 ` Daniel Vetter
2012-05-20 15:19 ` Daniel Vetter
[not found] ` <CAGS+omCnwFf-uKiQewMnprPJ5maSjS9ROeyoRTiYd_JRBjSBiQ@mail.gmail.com>
2012-05-20 18:16 ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2012-05-21 18:19 ` [PATCH] drm/i915: be more careful when returning -ENXIO in gmbus transfer Daniel Vetter
2012-05-21 18:24 ` Chris Wilson
[not found] ` <CAGS+omANiYtmKX_z2m2J-5j7a-K0z2MJ=wE3PcZRATmyh_VGxQ@mail.gmail.com>
2012-05-21 19:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2012-05-21 18:20 ` [PATCH] drm/i915: don't return -ENXIO from gmbus xfer Daniel Vetter
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=20120520181553.GE5145@phenom.ffwll.local \
--to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=djkurtz@chromium.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox