From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] i2c: tegra: Update transfer timeout Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:16:52 +0100 Message-ID: <20190129101652.GB28850@ulmo> References: <1548475073-12408-1-git-send-email-skomatineni@nvidia.com> <1548475073-12408-2-git-send-email-skomatineni@nvidia.com> <0cf91475-f77d-7453-deb6-3dd91b63aeb6@gmail.com> <2f3cab66-7424-1b33-976f-826877623726@gmail.com> <20190129101505.GA28850@ulmo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qcHopEYAB45HaUaB" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190129101505.GA28850@ulmo> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Osipenko Cc: Sowjanya Komatineni , Jonathan Hunter , Mantravadi Karthik , Shardar Mohammed , Timo Alho , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --qcHopEYAB45HaUaB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:15:05AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:27:09AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > > 29.01.2019 1:15, Sowjanya Komatineni =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >>>>> Update I2C transfer timeout based on transfer bytes and I2C bus r= ate=20 > > >>>>> to allow enough time during max transfer size based on the speed. > > >>>> > > >>>> Could it be that I2C device is busy and just slowly handling the t= ransfer requests? Maybe better to leave the timeout as-is and assume the wo= rst case scenario? > > >>>> > > >>> This change includes min transfer time out of 100ms in addition to = computed timeout based on transfer bytes and speed which can account in cas= es of slave devices running at slower speed. > > >>> Also Tegra I2C Master supports Clock stretching by the slave. > > >> > > >> Okay, I suppose in reality this shouldn't break anything. > > >> > > >> Please explain what benefits this change brings. Does it fix or impr= ove anything? The commit message only describes changes done in the patch a= nd has no word on justification of those changes. Transfer timeout is an ex= treme case that doesn't happen often and > > when it happens, usually only = the fact of timeout matters. If there is no real value in shortening of the= timeout, why bother then? > > >=20 > > > Original transfer timeout in existing driver is 1Sec and incases of t= ransfer size more than 10Kbytes at STD bus rate, timeout is not sufficient. > > > Also Tegra194 platform supports max of 64K bytes of transfer and to a= llow full transfer size at lowest bus rate it takes almost ~5.8 Sec. > > > In cases if large transfer at low bus rates 1 Sec timeout is not enou= gh and in those cases transfers will timeout before it waits for complete t= ransfer to happen. > > >=20 > > > So this patch uses transfer time based on transfer bytes and bus rate. > > >=20 > >=20 > > Please add that to the commit message. > >=20 > > And then seems you also need to set I2C adapter timeout to a some > > larger value. Currently Tegra's I2C doesn't explicitly specify the > > "adapter.timeout" and I2C core sets it to 1 second if it is 0. >=20 > I don't think adapter.timeout is the same thing as the timeout that > we're dealing with here. adapter.timeout is only used as a way to retry > on arbitration lost conditions. So, as far as I understand, if we try to > send a message to an I2C slave and we loose arbitration, we'll keep > retrying for one second before finally failing. I wouldn't expect these > arbitration lost conditions to happen right in the middle of a transfer, > but rather at the beginning already, so I'm not sure arbitration could > even be lost after, say, 2 seconds into a very large transfer. >=20 > All of that said, it seems like i2c-tegra doesn't respect the protocol > for making this arbitration loss retry work in the first place. We > should be returning -EAGAIN if we detect arbitration loss, but I don't > see that we ever return that. We should probably fix that in another > patch. Scratch that. Sowjanya's "bus clear" patch already takes care of that. Thierry --qcHopEYAB45HaUaB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEiOrDCAFJzPfAjcif3SOs138+s6EFAlxQKBQACgkQ3SOs138+ s6G1ExAAoUu0MGAShYZQunkWDdEHOp6YC2wdKI6ZFdXYYFCDO03YYWz4vYdFWg3P F5h6VZ/0iugVMWnaRZLl2IvDPJMgajBXNQikh3OMfmX63J3lTrY7OoRIT6xR80iH aERxXV3jBod7F1fCfQyazXnqOQaX0SvsSTxIOOGwt/s7jgdqrpmj/M9LJc/l0QBa rlrypR7Jx6CBnE9tyVhKMC8Hs3zKZai6DevIteswFKqp1aa0vBFeAMTHi+wSPgbY QbuAKL/BeaR6alELOxoFCMzGFSn+JFhkFyJ0VLUFr3F6yT8OWtRr/RkM6hgWHc+v E4VKqwW9pjBqg5Hvd68ykvNTBW/wCxLtcVHGKjuEVm1UaoeYO1gUE7elxJTGhq6P MQN5/Uk6je2rSaIylq1rp8epG3HEmkgvqOtHPtNQ4Srd8yuiV5jvzZueQgGy2jk8 T4v70PZ25UiS8lviOY+PEyRuXlTGTCfChktM4onJsIimAqZfROFRqE2Y8gcZ8V71 5UlOT4fJ9N9pKaZwq26Qd665yeGBm393h+fppDsgxdu4/VWSlvIk3MdeM61jmHVO LqcyPZtpFHQZ5zNp7eaySxNEdMYDyMfqp8QQvCloPZu8Ahs82tIZkl6eJVIoTMXG fPSlVMfgyH5EX0mw1PuRnW69Jns6kupQJV+2RMA8hhazMGxqWXk= =OcTh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qcHopEYAB45HaUaB--