Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] applesmc: Re-work SMC comms

Brad Campbell
2020-11-12T01:36:18Z

On 12/11/20 7:05 am, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> On 2020-11-11 14:06, Brad Campbell wrote:
>> Commit fff2d0f701e6 ("hwmon: (applesmc) avoid overlong udelay()")
>> introduced an issue whereby communication with the SMC became
>> unreliable with write errors like :
>>
>> [  120.378614] applesmc: send_byte(0x00, 0x0300) fail: 0x40
>> [  120.378621] applesmc: LKSB: write data fail
>> [  120.512782] applesmc: send_byte(0x00, 0x0300) fail: 0x40
>> [  120.512787] applesmc: LKSB: write data fail
>>
>> The original code appeared to be timing sensitive and was not reliable
>> with the timing changes in the aforementioned commit.
>>
>> This patch re-factors the SMC communication to remove the timing
>> dependencies and restore function with the changes previously
>> committed. Logic changes based on inspection of the Apple SMC kext.
>>
>> Tested on : MacbookAir6,2 MacBookPro11,1 iMac12,2, MacBookAir1,1,
>> MacBookAir3,1
>>
>> Fixes: fff2d0f701e6 ("hwmon: (applesmc) avoid overlong udelay()")
>> Reported-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
>> Tested-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> # MacBookAir6,2
>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Brad Campbell <brad@fnarfbargle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@bitmath.org>
>>
>> ---
>> Changelog :
>> v1 : Initial attempt
>> v2 : Address logic and coding style
>> v3 : Removed some debug hangover. Added tested-by. Modifications for MacBookAir1,1
>> v4 : Re-factored logic based on Apple driver. Simplified wait_status loop
>> v5 : Re-wrote status loop. Simplified busy check in send_byte(). Fixed formatting
>
> Hi Brad,
>
> This version is still working fine on the MBA1,1, at 50 reads per second.
>

Cheers Henrik,

I did 5.6 million reads overnight and had 3 failures.
I suspect it's this :
status = inb(APPLESMC_CMD_PORT) & SMC_STATUS_BUSY;
if (!status)
return -EIO;

When I used wait_status() previously I didn't see any read errors.
With hindsight I probably shouldn't have made that simplification.

I'll do some more testing and probably submit a v6 with just this change.
I think it's just about right provided that wait_status loop gets across the
line.

Regards,
Brad