From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: smbus: Send alert notifications to all devices if source not found
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3adf0b8f-2e12-413a-a76f-866e56bf096c@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZqdLVg6IVTjsTWb4@shikoro>
On 7/29/24 00:57, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> thanks for the feedback!
>
>>> High level question: why the retry? Did you experience address
>>> collisions going away on the second try? My guess is that they would be
>>> mostly persistent, so we could call smbus_do_alert_force() right away?
>>>
>>
>> I honestly don't recall. I had some brute force code to trigger alerts
>> on connected chips. Maybe the idea was to catch situations where another
>> alert was raised after or during the first cycle.
>
> Hmm, I'd think that SMBAlert then stays asserted and the whole alert
> handling will be started right away a second time? Given that all
> hardware works correctly, of course. Your setup showed that arbitration
> does not work well with actual hardware. Props for finding this out!
>
>> As for "call smbus_do_alert_force() right away", I am not sure I understand.
>> Isn't that what the code is doing twice ?
>
> It calls smbus_do_alert() twice (without '_force'). If that fails, it
> calls the _force version. I am wondering now if we can't call the _force
> version right after smbus_do_alert() fails once. Meaning we could remove
> all the "retries" code from your patch. If there is no clear reason for
> the code, not having it is easier to maintain. That's why I ask.
>
> I hope the question is understandable now.
>
I looked into the code again. The sequence is (or is supposed to be):
1st loop:
if (!alert_pending)
break;
smbus_do_alert()
if (failed at same address)
smbus_do_alert_force()
2nd loop:
if (!alert_pending)
break;
smbus_do_alert()
if (failed at same address)
break;
I think what you are suggesting is
1st loop:
if (!alert_pending)
break;
smbus_do_alert()
if (failed at same address)
retries++;
2nd loop:
if (!alert_pending)
break;
smbus_do_alert_force()
if (failed at same address && retries)
break;
But in reality that would not be much different because the alert status
is checked prior to calling smbus_do_alert() again.
With your suggestion (if I understand it correctly), the code would be
something like
/* Notify driver for the device which issued the alert */
status = device_for_each_child(&ara->adapter->dev, &data,
retries ? smbus_do_alert_force : smbus_do_alert);
/*
* If we read the same address more than once, and the alert
* was not handled by a driver, it won't do any good to repeat
* the loop because it will never terminate.
* Bail out in this case.
* Note: This assumes that a driver with alert handler handles
* the alert properly and clears it if necessary.
*/
if (data.addr == prev_addr && status != -EBUSY) {
/* retry once */
if (retries++)
break;
} else {
retries = 0;
}
I don't know, I prefer my code. It keeps the exception /retry handling in one
place. Personal preference, maybe. Either case, retries could probably be made
a boolean.
Thanks,
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-29 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-10 17:28 [PATCH 0/2] i2c: smbus: Handle stuck alerts Guenter Roeck
2022-01-10 17:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] i2c: smbus: Improve handling of " Guenter Roeck
2024-07-28 20:01 ` Wolfram Sang
2024-07-29 7:49 ` Wolfram Sang
2022-01-10 17:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] i2c: smbus: Send alert notifications to all devices if source not found Guenter Roeck
2024-07-28 20:04 ` Wolfram Sang
2024-07-29 0:31 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-07-29 7:57 ` Wolfram Sang
2024-07-29 14:23 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2024-07-29 18:36 ` Wolfram Sang
2024-07-29 18:44 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-07-29 20:52 ` Wolfram Sang
2024-07-29 21:39 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-06-12 17:49 ` [PATCH 0/2] i2c: smbus: Handle stuck alerts Guenter Roeck
2024-06-12 20:21 ` Wolfram Sang
2024-06-12 20:29 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-07-28 19:59 ` Wolfram Sang
2024-07-29 0:31 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-07-29 8:04 ` 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=3adf0b8f-2e12-413a-a76f-866e56bf096c@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com \
--cc=wsa@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).