* Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-09 14:28 ` Peter Rosin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2022-06-09 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, Alexandre Belloni, Rob Herring,
Wolfram Sang, Kamel Bouhara, Codrin Ciubotariu
Hi!
I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
makes the problem go away.
I.e. I need something like this in my dts
&i2c2 {
status = "okay";
pinctrl-names = "default";
/delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
/delete-property/ sda-gpios;
/delete-property/ scl-gpios;
eeprom@50 {
compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
reg = <0x50>;
wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
};
};
for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
eeprom).
For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
are:
pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
chunks, like so
dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
If I run
dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
are written.
With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
a lot more sensible:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
... snip ...
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
Cheers,
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-09 14:28 ` Peter Rosin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2022-06-09 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: Kamel Bouhara, Alexandre Belloni, Wolfram Sang,
Ludovic.Desroches, Rob Herring, Codrin Ciubotariu
Hi!
I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
makes the problem go away.
I.e. I need something like this in my dts
&i2c2 {
status = "okay";
pinctrl-names = "default";
/delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
/delete-property/ sda-gpios;
/delete-property/ scl-gpios;
eeprom@50 {
compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
reg = <0x50>;
wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
};
};
for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
eeprom).
For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
are:
pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
chunks, like so
dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
If I run
dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
are written.
With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
a lot more sensible:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
... snip ...
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-09 14:28 ` Peter Rosin
@ 2022-06-10 7:35 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Codrin.Ciubotariu @ 2022-06-10 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peda, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni, robh+dt,
wsa, kamel.bouhara
On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Peter,
>
> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
> makes the problem go away.
>
> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>
> &i2c2 {
> status = "okay";
>
> pinctrl-names = "default";
> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>
> eeprom@50 {
> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
> reg = <0x50>;
> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> };
> };
>
> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
> eeprom).
>
> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
> are:
>
> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>
> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>
> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
> chunks, like so
>
> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>
> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>
>
> If I run
>
> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>
> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>
> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
> are written.
>
> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
> a lot more sensible:
>
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
> ... snip ...
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
addresses your issue?
Thanks and best regards,
Codrin
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-10 7:35 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Codrin.Ciubotariu @ 2022-06-10 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peda, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: kamel.bouhara, alexandre.belloni, wsa, Ludovic.Desroches, robh+dt
On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Peter,
>
> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
> makes the problem go away.
>
> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>
> &i2c2 {
> status = "okay";
>
> pinctrl-names = "default";
> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>
> eeprom@50 {
> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
> reg = <0x50>;
> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> };
> };
>
> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
> eeprom).
>
> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
> are:
>
> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>
> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>
> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
> chunks, like so
>
> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>
> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>
>
> If I run
>
> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>
> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>
> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
> are written.
>
> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
> a lot more sensible:
>
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
> ... snip ...
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
addresses your issue?
Thanks and best regards,
Codrin
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-10 7:35 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
@ 2022-06-10 20:51 ` Peter Rosin
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2022-06-10 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni, robh+dt,
wsa, kamel.bouhara
Hi!
2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Hi!
>
> Hi Peter,
>
>>
>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>> makes the problem go away.
>>
>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>
>> &i2c2 {
>> status = "okay";
>>
>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>
>> eeprom@50 {
>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>> reg = <0x50>;
>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> };
>> };
>>
>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>> eeprom).
>>
>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>> are:
>>
>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>
>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>
>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>> chunks, like so
>>
>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>
>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>
>>
>> If I run
>>
>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>
>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>
>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>> are written.
>>
>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>> a lot more sensible:
>>
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>> ... snip ...
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>
> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
> addresses your issue?
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Codrin
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
Thank you very much!
Cheers,
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-10 20:51 ` Peter Rosin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2022-06-10 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: kamel.bouhara, alexandre.belloni, wsa, Ludovic.Desroches, robh+dt
Hi!
2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Hi!
>
> Hi Peter,
>
>>
>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>> makes the problem go away.
>>
>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>
>> &i2c2 {
>> status = "okay";
>>
>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>
>> eeprom@50 {
>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>> reg = <0x50>;
>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> };
>> };
>>
>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>> eeprom).
>>
>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>> are:
>>
>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>
>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>
>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>> chunks, like so
>>
>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>
>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>
>>
>> If I run
>>
>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>
>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>
>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>> are written.
>>
>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>> a lot more sensible:
>>
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>> ... snip ...
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>
> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
> addresses your issue?
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Codrin
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
Thank you very much!
Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-09 14:28 ` Peter Rosin
@ 2022-06-11 13:41 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2022-06-11 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree, regressions
[TLDR: I'm adding this regression report to the list of tracked
regressions; all text from me you find below is based on a few templates
paragraphs you might have encountered already already in similar form.]
Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
On 09.06.22 16:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
> makes the problem go away.
To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the cracks unnoticed, I'm
adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot:
#regzbot ^introduced a4bd8da893a3
#regzbot title i2c: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
#regzbot ignore-activity
#regzbot monitor:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210727111554.1338832-1-codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com/
This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already
discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when
the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or
something else totally wrong? Then just reply -- ideally with also
telling regzbot about it, as explained here:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/tracked-regression/
Reminder for developers: When fixing the issue, add 'Link:' tags
pointing to the report (the mail this one replied to), as the kernel's
documentation call for; above page explains why this is important for
tracked regressions.
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>
> &i2c2 {
> status = "okay";
>
> pinctrl-names = "default";
> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>
> eeprom@50 {
> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
> reg = <0x50>;
> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> };
> };
>
> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
> eeprom).
>
> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
> are:
>
> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>
> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>
> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
> chunks, like so
>
> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>
> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>
>
> If I run
>
> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>
> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>
> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
> are written.
>
> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
> a lot more sensible:
>
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
> ... snip ...
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-11 13:41 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2022-06-11 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree, regressions
[TLDR: I'm adding this regression report to the list of tracked
regressions; all text from me you find below is based on a few templates
paragraphs you might have encountered already already in similar form.]
Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
On 09.06.22 16:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
> makes the problem go away.
To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the cracks unnoticed, I'm
adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot:
#regzbot ^introduced a4bd8da893a3
#regzbot title i2c: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
#regzbot ignore-activity
#regzbot monitor:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210727111554.1338832-1-codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com/
This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already
discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when
the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or
something else totally wrong? Then just reply -- ideally with also
telling regzbot about it, as explained here:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/tracked-regression/
Reminder for developers: When fixing the issue, add 'Link:' tags
pointing to the report (the mail this one replied to), as the kernel's
documentation call for; above page explains why this is important for
tracked regressions.
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>
> &i2c2 {
> status = "okay";
>
> pinctrl-names = "default";
> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>
> eeprom@50 {
> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
> reg = <0x50>;
> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> };
> };
>
> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
> eeprom).
>
> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
> are:
>
> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>
> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>
> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
> chunks, like so
>
> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>
> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>
>
> If I run
>
> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>
> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>
> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
> are written.
>
> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
> a lot more sensible:
>
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
> ... snip ...
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-10 7:35 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
@ 2022-06-13 14:58 ` Wolfram Sang
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2022-06-13 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Codrin.Ciubotariu
Cc: devicetree, alexandre.belloni, kamel.bouhara, linux-kernel,
Ludovic.Desroches, robh+dt, linux-i2c, peda, linux-arm-kernel
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 191 bytes --]
Hi Codrin,
> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
> addresses your issue?
Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
Happy hacking,
Wolfram
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-13 14:58 ` Wolfram Sang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2022-06-13 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Codrin.Ciubotariu
Cc: peda, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree,
Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni, robh+dt,
kamel.bouhara
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 191 bytes --]
Hi Codrin,
> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
> addresses your issue?
Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
Happy hacking,
Wolfram
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-13 14:58 ` Wolfram Sang
@ 2022-06-13 15:43 ` Peter Rosin
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2022-06-13 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfram Sang, Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, devicetree, Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre,
alexandre.belloni, robh+dt, kamel.bouhara
Hi!
2022-06-13 at 16:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Codrin,
>
>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>> addresses your issue?
>
> Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-13 15:43 ` Peter Rosin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2022-06-13 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfram Sang, Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, devicetree, Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre,
alexandre.belloni, robh+dt, kamel.bouhara
Hi!
2022-06-13 at 16:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Codrin,
>
>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>> addresses your issue?
>
> Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
Cheers,
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-13 15:43 ` Peter Rosin
@ 2022-06-13 20:06 ` Wolfram Sang
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2022-06-13 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Rosin
Cc: devicetree, alexandre.belloni, kamel.bouhara, linux-kernel,
Ludovic.Desroches, robh+dt, linux-i2c, Codrin.Ciubotariu,
linux-arm-kernel
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 224 bytes --]
> I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
> patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
> Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
I didn't get them. Yeah, maybe a resend will help?
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-13 20:06 ` Wolfram Sang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2022-06-13 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Rosin
Cc: Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
devicetree, Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni,
robh+dt, kamel.bouhara
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 224 bytes --]
> I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
> patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
> Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
I didn't get them. Yeah, maybe a resend will help?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-13 15:43 ` Peter Rosin
@ 2022-06-14 8:25 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Codrin.Ciubotariu @ 2022-06-14 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peda, wsa, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree,
Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni, robh+dt,
kamel.bouhara
On 13.06.2022 18:43, Peter Rosin wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> Hi!
>
> 2022-06-13 at 16:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Hi Codrin,
>>
>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>> addresses your issue?
>>
>> Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
I replied two times, but it looks like my e-mails also don't reach the
list.
>
> I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
> patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
> Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
Same in my case. I though it has something to do with my setup or
Microchip's IT, but it looks like it's not the case.
I can resend the patches. Hopefully it will help.
Best regards,
Codrin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-14 8:25 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Codrin.Ciubotariu @ 2022-06-14 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peda, wsa, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree,
Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni, robh+dt,
kamel.bouhara
On 13.06.2022 18:43, Peter Rosin wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> Hi!
>
> 2022-06-13 at 16:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Hi Codrin,
>>
>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>> addresses your issue?
>>
>> Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
I replied two times, but it looks like my e-mails also don't reach the
list.
>
> I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
> patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
> Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
Same in my case. I though it has something to do with my setup or
Microchip's IT, but it looks like it's not the case.
I can resend the patches. Hopefully it will help.
Best regards,
Codrin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-14 8:25 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
@ 2022-06-14 13:53 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Codrin.Ciubotariu @ 2022-06-14 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peda, wsa, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree,
Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni, robh+dt,
kamel.bouhara
On 14.06.2022 11:25, Codrin Ciubotariu wrote:
> On 13.06.2022 18:43, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>> the content is safe
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> 2022-06-13 at 16:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> Hi Codrin,
>>>
>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>
>>> Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
>
> I replied two times, but it looks like my e-mails also don't reach the
> list.
>
>>
>> I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
>> patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
>> Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
>
> Same in my case. I though it has something to do with my setup or
> Microchip's IT, but it looks like it's not the case.
>
> I can resend the patches. Hopefully it will help.
I resent the patch-set, replied and the replies still don't appear.
Best regards,
Codrin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-14 13:53 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Codrin.Ciubotariu @ 2022-06-14 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peda, wsa, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree,
Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni, robh+dt,
kamel.bouhara
On 14.06.2022 11:25, Codrin Ciubotariu wrote:
> On 13.06.2022 18:43, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>> the content is safe
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> 2022-06-13 at 16:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> Hi Codrin,
>>>
>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>
>>> Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
>
> I replied two times, but it looks like my e-mails also don't reach the
> list.
>
>>
>> I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
>> patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
>> Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
>
> Same in my case. I though it has something to do with my setup or
> Microchip's IT, but it looks like it's not the case.
>
> I can resend the patches. Hopefully it will help.
I resent the patch-set, replied and the replies still don't appear.
Best regards,
Codrin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-14 13:53 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
@ 2022-06-14 14:25 ` Conor.Dooley
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Conor.Dooley @ 2022-06-14 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Codrin.Ciubotariu, peda, wsa, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, devicetree, Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre,
alexandre.belloni, robh+dt, kamel.bouhara
On 14/06/2022 14:53, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
> On 14.06.2022 11:25, Codrin Ciubotariu wrote:
>> On 13.06.2022 18:43, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>>> the content is safe
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> 2022-06-13 at 16:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>> Hi Codrin,
>>>>
>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>
>>>> Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
>>
>> I replied two times, but it looks like my e-mails also don't reach the
>> list.
>>
>>>
>>> I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
>>> patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
>>> Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
>>
>> Same in my case. I though it has something to do with my setup or
>> Microchip's IT, but it looks like it's not the case.
>>
>> I can resend the patches. Hopefully it will help.
>
> I resent the patch-set, replied and the replies still don't appear.
This one (and the other one mentioning IT) went through for me.
Anything you're doing differently?
I guess you can also always fall back to using send-email w/
the command from the lore page if for w/e reason using tbird
is failing for you?
Thanks,
Conor.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-14 14:25 ` Conor.Dooley
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Conor.Dooley @ 2022-06-14 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Codrin.Ciubotariu, peda, wsa, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, devicetree, Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre,
alexandre.belloni, robh+dt, kamel.bouhara
On 14/06/2022 14:53, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
> On 14.06.2022 11:25, Codrin Ciubotariu wrote:
>> On 13.06.2022 18:43, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>>> the content is safe
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> 2022-06-13 at 16:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>> Hi Codrin,
>>>>
>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>
>>>> Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
>>
>> I replied two times, but it looks like my e-mails also don't reach the
>> list.
>>
>>>
>>> I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
>>> patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
>>> Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
>>
>> Same in my case. I though it has something to do with my setup or
>> Microchip's IT, but it looks like it's not the case.
>>
>> I can resend the patches. Hopefully it will help.
>
> I resent the patch-set, replied and the replies still don't appear.
This one (and the other one mentioning IT) went through for me.
Anything you're doing differently?
I guess you can also always fall back to using send-email w/
the command from the lore page if for w/e reason using tbird
is failing for you?
Thanks,
Conor.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-14 14:25 ` Conor.Dooley
@ 2022-06-15 8:34 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Codrin.Ciubotariu @ 2022-06-15 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Conor.Dooley, peda, wsa, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, devicetree, Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre,
alexandre.belloni, robh+dt, kamel.bouhara
On 14.06.2022 17:25, Conor Dooley - M52691 wrote:
> On 14/06/2022 14:53, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>> On 14.06.2022 11:25, Codrin Ciubotariu wrote:
>>> On 13.06.2022 18:43, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>>>> the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> 2022-06-13 at 16:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>>> Hi Codrin,
>>>>>
>>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
>>>
>>> I replied two times, but it looks like my e-mails also don't reach the
>>> list.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
>>>> patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
>>>> Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
>>>
>>> Same in my case. I though it has something to do with my setup or
>>> Microchip's IT, but it looks like it's not the case.
>>>
>>> I can resend the patches. Hopefully it will help.
>>
>> I resent the patch-set, replied and the replies still don't appear.
>
> This one (and the other one mentioning IT) went through for me.
> Anything you're doing differently?
>
> I guess you can also always fall back to using send-email w/
> the command from the lore page if for w/e reason using tbird
> is failing for you?
These replies worked fine, but the replies to the patches didn't.
Best regards,
Codrin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-15 8:34 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Codrin.Ciubotariu @ 2022-06-15 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Conor.Dooley, peda, wsa, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, devicetree, Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre,
alexandre.belloni, robh+dt, kamel.bouhara
On 14.06.2022 17:25, Conor Dooley - M52691 wrote:
> On 14/06/2022 14:53, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>> On 14.06.2022 11:25, Codrin Ciubotariu wrote:
>>> On 13.06.2022 18:43, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>>>> the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> 2022-06-13 at 16:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>>> Hi Codrin,
>>>>>
>>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any comments to the comments I gave to [1]? :)
>>>
>>> I replied two times, but it looks like my e-mails also don't reach the
>>> list.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I replied to patch 1/3 and 2/3 but have not seen them on the lists and
>>>> patchwork also appears to be in the dark.
>>>> Did the replies make it anywhere? Should I resend?
>>>
>>> Same in my case. I though it has something to do with my setup or
>>> Microchip's IT, but it looks like it's not the case.
>>>
>>> I can resend the patches. Hopefully it will help.
>>
>> I resent the patch-set, replied and the replies still don't appear.
>
> This one (and the other one mentioning IT) went through for me.
> Anything you're doing differently?
>
> I guess you can also always fall back to using send-email w/
> the command from the lore page if for w/e reason using tbird
> is failing for you?
These replies worked fine, but the replies to the patches didn't.
Best regards,
Codrin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-10 20:51 ` Peter Rosin
@ 2022-06-30 7:44 ` Peter Rosin
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2022-06-30 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni, robh+dt,
wsa, kamel.bouhara
Hi again.
2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>>>
>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>
>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>
>>> &i2c2 {
>>> status = "okay";
>>>
>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>
>>> eeprom@50 {
>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>> eeprom).
>>>
>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>> are:
>>>
>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>
>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>
>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>> chunks, like so
>>>
>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>
>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>
>>>
>>> If I run
>>>
>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>
>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>
>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>> are written.
>>>
>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>> ... snip ...
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>
>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>> addresses your issue?
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Codrin
>>
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>
> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>
> Thank you very much!
Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
the failure is completely silent.
Cheers,
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-06-30 7:44 ` Peter Rosin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2022-06-30 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: kamel.bouhara, alexandre.belloni, wsa, Ludovic.Desroches, robh+dt
Hi again.
2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>>>
>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>
>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>
>>> &i2c2 {
>>> status = "okay";
>>>
>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>
>>> eeprom@50 {
>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>> eeprom).
>>>
>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>> are:
>>>
>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>
>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>
>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>> chunks, like so
>>>
>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>
>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>
>>>
>>> If I run
>>>
>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>
>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>
>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>> are written.
>>>
>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>> ... snip ...
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>
>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>> addresses your issue?
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Codrin
>>
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>
> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>
> Thank you very much!
Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
the failure is completely silent.
Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-06-30 7:44 ` Peter Rosin
@ 2022-09-08 12:06 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2022-09-08 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Rosin, Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni, robh+dt,
wsa, kamel.bouhara
Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
to make this easily accessible to everyone.
Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
what can we do to finally get this resolved?
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>
>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>
>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>
>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>
>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>> eeprom).
>>>>
>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>> are:
>>>>
>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>
>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>
>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>
>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I run
>>>>
>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>
>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>
>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>> are written.
>>>>
>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>> ... snip ...
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>
>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>> addresses your issue?
>>>
>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>> Codrin
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>
>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>
>> Thank you very much!
>
> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
> the failure is completely silent.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
#regzbot poke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-09-08 12:06 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2022-09-08 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Rosin, Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: kamel.bouhara, alexandre.belloni, wsa, Ludovic.Desroches, robh+dt
Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
to make this easily accessible to everyone.
Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
what can we do to finally get this resolved?
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>
>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>
>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>
>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>
>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>> eeprom).
>>>>
>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>> are:
>>>>
>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>
>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>
>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>
>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I run
>>>>
>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>
>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>
>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>> are written.
>>>>
>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>> ... snip ...
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>
>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>> addresses your issue?
>>>
>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>> Codrin
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>
>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>
>> Thank you very much!
>
> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
> the failure is completely silent.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
#regzbot poke
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-09-08 12:06 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
@ 2022-09-08 13:59 ` Peter Rosin
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2022-09-08 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis, Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: Ludovic.Desroches, Nicolas.Ferre, alexandre.belloni, robh+dt,
wsa, kamel.bouhara
Hi!
2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
> to make this easily accessible to everyone.
>
> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
either...
Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
Cheers,
Peter
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>
> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>
> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>
>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>
>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>
>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>
>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>> are:
>>>>>
>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>
>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>
>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I run
>>>>>
>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>
>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>
>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>> are written.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>
>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>> Codrin
>>>>
>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>
>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>
>>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>> the failure is completely silent.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>
> #regzbot poke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-09-08 13:59 ` Peter Rosin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2022-09-08 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis, Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: kamel.bouhara, alexandre.belloni, wsa, Ludovic.Desroches, robh+dt
Hi!
2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
> to make this easily accessible to everyone.
>
> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
either...
Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
Cheers,
Peter
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>
> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>
> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>
>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>
>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>
>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>
>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>> are:
>>>>>
>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>
>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>
>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I run
>>>>>
>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>
>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>
>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>> are written.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>
>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>> Codrin
>>>>
>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>
>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>
>>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>> the failure is completely silent.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>
> #regzbot poke
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3 #forregzbot
2022-09-08 13:59 ` Peter Rosin
@ 2022-09-26 13:32 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2022-09-26 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
TWIMC: this mail is primarily send for documentation purposes and for
regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot. These mails usually
contain '#forregzbot' in the subject, to make them easy to spot and filter.
On 08.09.22 15:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
>> to make this easily accessible to everyone.
>>
>> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
>> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
>> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
>> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
>> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
>
> No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
> production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
> Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
> it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
> either...
>
> Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
FWIW, in that case:
#regzbot backburner: a proper fix will take some time and reporter has a
work-around
>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>
>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>
>> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I run
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>>> are written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>>
>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>> Codrin
>>>>>
>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>>
>>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>
>>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>>> the failure is completely silent.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>
>> #regzbot poke
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3 #forregzbot
@ 2022-09-26 13:32 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2022-09-26 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, devicetree
TWIMC: this mail is primarily send for documentation purposes and for
regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot. These mails usually
contain '#forregzbot' in the subject, to make them easy to spot and filter.
On 08.09.22 15:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
>> to make this easily accessible to everyone.
>>
>> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
>> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
>> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
>> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
>> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
>
> No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
> production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
> Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
> it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
> either...
>
> Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
FWIW, in that case:
#regzbot backburner: a proper fix will take some time and reporter has a
work-around
>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>
>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>
>> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I run
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>>> are written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>>
>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>> Codrin
>>>>>
>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>>
>>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>
>>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>>> the failure is completely silent.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>
>> #regzbot poke
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-09-08 13:59 ` Peter Rosin
@ 2022-12-15 17:53 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2022-12-15 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Rosin, Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: kamel.bouhara, alexandre.belloni, wsa, Ludovic.Desroches,
robh+dt, regressions
Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
On 08.09.22 15:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
>> to make this easily accessible to everyone.
>>
>> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
>> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
>> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
>> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
>> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
>
> No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
> production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
> Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
> it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
> either...
>
> Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
I still have this regression that Peter reported in late July on my
list. :-(
Codrin (and maybe Wolfram), could you provide a update please? Afaics
this is the state of things (please correct me if I'm wrong!): In an
earlier mail
(https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38dedc92-62a2-7365-6fda-95d6404be749@axentia.se/
) of this thread Peter stated that the following patch set Codrin posted
mid 2021 helped:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210727111554.1338832-1-codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com/
There where a few review comments from Wolfram, but looks like then
things stalled. Can we somehow get this rolling again to finally get
this regression fixed?
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>
>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>
>> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I run
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>>> are written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>>
>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>> Codrin
>>>>>
>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>>
>>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>
>>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>>> the failure is completely silent.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>
>> #regzbot poke
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
#regzbot poke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-12-15 17:53 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2022-12-15 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Rosin, Codrin.Ciubotariu, linux-i2c, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, devicetree
Cc: kamel.bouhara, alexandre.belloni, wsa, Ludovic.Desroches,
robh+dt, regressions
Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
On 08.09.22 15:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
>> to make this easily accessible to everyone.
>>
>> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
>> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
>> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
>> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
>> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
>
> No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
> production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
> Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
> it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
> either...
>
> Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
I still have this regression that Peter reported in late July on my
list. :-(
Codrin (and maybe Wolfram), could you provide a update please? Afaics
this is the state of things (please correct me if I'm wrong!): In an
earlier mail
(https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38dedc92-62a2-7365-6fda-95d6404be749@axentia.se/
) of this thread Peter stated that the following patch set Codrin posted
mid 2021 helped:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210727111554.1338832-1-codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com/
There where a few review comments from Wolfram, but looks like then
things stalled. Can we somehow get this rolling again to finally get
this regression fixed?
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>
>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>
>> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I run
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>>> are written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>>
>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>> Codrin
>>>>>
>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>>
>>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>
>>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>>> the failure is completely silent.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>
>> #regzbot poke
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
#regzbot poke
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-12-15 17:53 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
@ 2022-12-15 18:50 ` Conor.Dooley
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Conor.Dooley @ 2022-12-15 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: regressions, peda, Codrin.Ciubotariu, Nicolas.Ferre, wsa
Cc: kamel.bouhara, linux-i2c, alexandre.belloni, Ludovic.Desroches,
linux-arm-kernel, devicetree, robh+dt, regressions, linux-kernel
+CC Nicolas
On 15/12/2022 17:53, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
>
> On 08.09.22 15:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> 2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
>>> to make this easily accessible to everyone.
>>>
>>> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
>>> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
>>> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
>>> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
>>> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
>>
>> No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
>> production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
>> Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
>> it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
>> either...
>>
>> Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
>
> I still have this regression that Peter reported in late July on my
> list. :-(
>
> Codrin (and maybe Wolfram), could you provide a update please? Afaics
> this is the state of things (please correct me if I'm wrong!): In an
> earlier mail
> (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38dedc92-62a2-7365-6fda-95d6404be749@axentia.se/
> ) of this thread Peter stated that the following patch set Codrin posted
> mid 2021 helped:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210727111554.1338832-1-codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com/
IIRC (and I may well be wrong as it is not my neck of the woods) Codrin is
no longer at Microchip. Nicolas, do you know who has taken over this driver?
Thanks,
Conor.
>
> There where a few review comments from Wolfram, but looks like then
> things stalled. Can we somehow get this rolling again to finally get
> this regression fixed?
>
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>
> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>
>>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>>
>>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>>
>>> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I run
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>>>> are written.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>> Codrin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>>>
>>>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>>
>>>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>>>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>>>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>>>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>>>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>>>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>>>> the failure is completely silent.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> #regzbot poke
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
> #regzbot poke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2022-12-15 18:50 ` Conor.Dooley
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Conor.Dooley @ 2022-12-15 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: regressions, peda, Codrin.Ciubotariu, Nicolas.Ferre, wsa
Cc: kamel.bouhara, linux-i2c, alexandre.belloni, Ludovic.Desroches,
linux-arm-kernel, devicetree, robh+dt, regressions, linux-kernel
+CC Nicolas
On 15/12/2022 17:53, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
>
> On 08.09.22 15:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> 2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
>>> to make this easily accessible to everyone.
>>>
>>> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
>>> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
>>> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
>>> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
>>> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
>>
>> No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
>> production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
>> Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
>> it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
>> either...
>>
>> Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
>
> I still have this regression that Peter reported in late July on my
> list. :-(
>
> Codrin (and maybe Wolfram), could you provide a update please? Afaics
> this is the state of things (please correct me if I'm wrong!): In an
> earlier mail
> (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38dedc92-62a2-7365-6fda-95d6404be749@axentia.se/
> ) of this thread Peter stated that the following patch set Codrin posted
> mid 2021 helped:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210727111554.1338832-1-codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com/
IIRC (and I may well be wrong as it is not my neck of the woods) Codrin is
no longer at Microchip. Nicolas, do you know who has taken over this driver?
Thanks,
Conor.
>
> There where a few review comments from Wolfram, but looks like then
> things stalled. Can we somehow get this rolling again to finally get
> this regression fixed?
>
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>
> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>
>>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>>
>>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>>
>>> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I run
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>>>> are written.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>> Codrin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>>>
>>>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>>
>>>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>>>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>>>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>>>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>>>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>>>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>>>> the failure is completely silent.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> #regzbot poke
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
> #regzbot poke
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
2022-12-15 18:50 ` Conor.Dooley
@ 2023-03-15 11:07 ` Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) @ 2023-03-15 11:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Conor.Dooley, peda, Codrin.Ciubotariu, Nicolas.Ferre, wsa
Cc: kamel.bouhara, linux-i2c, alexandre.belloni, Ludovic.Desroches,
linux-arm-kernel, devicetree, robh+dt, regressions, linux-kernel
Hi, Thorsten here, the Linux kernel's regression tracker. Seems this
regression is still unfixed (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I'm
back with another comment:
On 15.12.22 19:50, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> On 15/12/2022 17:53, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 08.09.22 15:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> 2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
>>>> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
>>>> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
>>>> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
>>>> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
>>>
>>> No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
>>> production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
>>> Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
>>> it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
>>> either...
>>>
>>> Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
>>
>> I still have this regression that Peter reported in late July on my
>> list. :-(
>>
>> Codrin (and maybe Wolfram), could you provide a update please? Afaics
>> this is the state of things (please correct me if I'm wrong!): In an
>> earlier mail
>> (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38dedc92-62a2-7365-6fda-95d6404be749@axentia.se/
>> ) of this thread Peter stated that the following patch set Codrin posted
>> mid 2021 helped:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210727111554.1338832-1-codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com/
>
> IIRC (and I may well be wrong as it is not my neck of the woods) Codrin is
> no longer at Microchip. Nicolas, do you know who has taken over this driver?
Nicolas didn't reply afaics, but I just found he in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/176099e2-cbff-1987-f59a-2ca618a9c92a@microchip.com/
mentioned that Codrin left.
Did anyone else take over his duties and that patchset? Or should I file
this under "regressions that were bisected[1], but nevertheless fixed"?
I'd hate to do that when patches to resolve it are actually available
and got stuck in review...
[1] to a change from Kamel Bouhara iirc
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
#regzbot poke
>> There where a few review comments from Wolfram, but looks like then
>> things stalled. Can we somehow get this rolling again to finally get
>> this regression fixed?
>>
>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>
>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>
>>>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>>>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>>>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>>>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>>>
>>>> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I run
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>>>>> are written.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>>> Codrin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>>>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>>>
>>>>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>>>>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>>>>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>>>>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>>>>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>>>>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>>>>> the failure is completely silent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> #regzbot poke
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
>> #regzbot poke
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3
@ 2023-03-15 11:07 ` Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) @ 2023-03-15 11:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Conor.Dooley, peda, Codrin.Ciubotariu, Nicolas.Ferre, wsa
Cc: kamel.bouhara, linux-i2c, alexandre.belloni, Ludovic.Desroches,
linux-arm-kernel, devicetree, robh+dt, regressions, linux-kernel
Hi, Thorsten here, the Linux kernel's regression tracker. Seems this
regression is still unfixed (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I'm
back with another comment:
On 15.12.22 19:50, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> On 15/12/2022 17:53, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 08.09.22 15:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> 2022-09-08 at 14:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Peter, Codrin, could you help me out here please: I still have the
>>>> regression report from Peter that started this thread in the list of
>>>> tracked issues. From Peter's last msg quoted below it seems the thread
>>>> just faded out without the regression being fixed. Or was it? If not:
>>>> what can we do to finally get this resolved?
>>>
>>> No, it is not resolved that I know of. We are only writing during
>>> production, but are working around it by verifying and looping back.
>>> Sometimes it takes surprisingly long for the loop to finish, but
>>> it's not a huge deal. But it is of course not completely satisfying
>>> either...
>>>
>>> Reading is never a problem, so post-production behavior is sane.
>>
>> I still have this regression that Peter reported in late July on my
>> list. :-(
>>
>> Codrin (and maybe Wolfram), could you provide a update please? Afaics
>> this is the state of things (please correct me if I'm wrong!): In an
>> earlier mail
>> (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38dedc92-62a2-7365-6fda-95d6404be749@axentia.se/
>> ) of this thread Peter stated that the following patch set Codrin posted
>> mid 2021 helped:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210727111554.1338832-1-codrin.ciubotariu@microchip.com/
>
> IIRC (and I may well be wrong as it is not my neck of the woods) Codrin is
> no longer at Microchip. Nicolas, do you know who has taken over this driver?
Nicolas didn't reply afaics, but I just found he in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/176099e2-cbff-1987-f59a-2ca618a9c92a@microchip.com/
mentioned that Codrin left.
Did anyone else take over his duties and that patchset? Or should I file
this under "regressions that were bisected[1], but nevertheless fixed"?
I'd hate to do that when patches to resolve it are actually available
and got stuck in review...
[1] to a change from Kamel Bouhara iirc
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
#regzbot poke
>> There where a few review comments from Wolfram, but looks like then
>> things stalled. Can we somehow get this rolling again to finally get
>> this regression fixed?
>>
>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>
>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>
>>>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
>>>> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
>>>> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
>>>> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
>>>>
>>>> On 30.06.22 09:44, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>> 2022-06-10 at 22:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>> 2022-06-10 at 09:35, Codrin.Ciubotariu@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09.06.2022 17:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have not actually bisected this issue but reverting the effects of
>>>>>>>> patch a4bd8da893a3 ("ARM: dts: at91: sama5d3: add i2c gpio pinctrl")
>>>>>>>> makes the problem go away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I.e. I need something like this in my dts
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> &i2c2 {
>>>>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>>>> /delete-property/ pinctrl-1;
>>>>>>>> /delete-property/ sda-gpios;
>>>>>>>> /delete-property/ scl-gpios;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eeprom@50 {
>>>>>>>> compatible = "st,24c64", "atmel,24c64";
>>>>>>>> reg = <0x50>;
>>>>>>>> wp-gpios = <&filter_gpio 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for multi-page eeprom writes to not time out (a page is 32 bytes on this
>>>>>>>> eeprom).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For reference, the current defaults for this SoC/I2C-bus, that I modify,
>>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
>>>>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c2>;
>>>>>>>> pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i2c2_gpio>;
>>>>>>>> sda-gpios = <&pioA 18 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>>>>>> scl-gpios = <&pioA 19 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect that the underlying reason is that the bus recovery takes
>>>>>>>> too long and that the at24 eeprom driver gives up prematurely. I doubt
>>>>>>>> that this is chip specific, but I don't know that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can work around the issue in user space with by writing in 4 byte
>>>>>>>> chunks, like so
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom obs=4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but that is really ugly and gets slow too, about 20 seconds to program
>>>>>>>> the full 8kB eeprom. With the above in my dts it takes a second or
>>>>>>>> so (a bit more with dynamic debug active).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I run
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dd if=source.file of=/sys/bus/i2c/devices/2-0050/eeprom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with a source.file of 8kB and the upstream dts properties in place, I can
>>>>>>>> collect the following debug output from at24, i2c-core and i2c-at91:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (-23170)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (-23169)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (-23168)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (-23168)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (-23167)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (-23167)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23155)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: controller timed out
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: Trying i2c bus recovery
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:56:34 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -110 (-23143)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And then there is no more action. I.e. only a couple of 32 byte pages
>>>>>>>> are written.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the above mentioned dts override in place I instead get this, which is
>>>>>>>> a lot more sensible:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@0 --> 0 (753629)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> -121 (753629)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@32 --> 0 (753630)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> -121 (753630)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@64 --> 0 (753631)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> -121 (753631)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@96 --> 0 (753632)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> -121 (753632)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@128 --> 0 (753633)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> -121 (753633)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:53 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@160 --> 0 (753634)
>>>>>>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> -121 (753883)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8128 --> 0 (753884)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: received nack
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> -121 (753884)
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: i2c i2c-2: at91_xfer: processing 1 messages:
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer: write 34 bytes.
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at91_i2c f801c000.i2c: transfer complete
>>>>>>>> Jun 9 15:48:55 me20 kernel: at24 2-0050: write 32@8160 --> 0 (753885)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> could you please apply this patch-set [1] and let us know if it
>>>>>>> addresses your issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>>>> Codrin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?series=255408
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That series does indeed help! I'll reply with a tested-by etc on the
>>>>>> first two patches, I can't test patch 3/3 with my sama5d3 board...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>>>
>>>>> Since replying to the actual patches do not work for me, I'm writing here
>>>>> instead. Sorry about that. As stated above, it /seems/ to work much better
>>>>> with these patches. But I fooled myself and there is still some remaining
>>>>> trouble. It is not uncommon that the second (32-byte) page in the eeprom
>>>>> is not written correctly for whatever reason. I do not know why it's
>>>>> always the second page that gets corrupted, but this is a bad problem since
>>>>> the failure is completely silent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> #regzbot poke
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
>> #regzbot poke
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-15 11:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-06-09 14:28 Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3 Peter Rosin
2022-06-09 14:28 ` Peter Rosin
2022-06-10 7:35 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2022-06-10 7:35 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2022-06-10 20:51 ` Peter Rosin
2022-06-10 20:51 ` Peter Rosin
2022-06-30 7:44 ` Peter Rosin
2022-06-30 7:44 ` Peter Rosin
2022-09-08 12:06 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-09-08 12:06 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-09-08 13:59 ` Peter Rosin
2022-09-08 13:59 ` Peter Rosin
2022-09-26 13:32 ` Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3 #forregzbot Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-09-26 13:32 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-12-15 17:53 ` Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3 Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-12-15 17:53 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-12-15 18:50 ` Conor.Dooley
2022-12-15 18:50 ` Conor.Dooley
2023-03-15 11:07 ` Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
2023-03-15 11:07 ` Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
2022-06-13 14:58 ` Wolfram Sang
2022-06-13 14:58 ` Wolfram Sang
2022-06-13 15:43 ` Peter Rosin
2022-06-13 15:43 ` Peter Rosin
2022-06-13 20:06 ` Wolfram Sang
2022-06-13 20:06 ` Wolfram Sang
2022-06-14 8:25 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2022-06-14 8:25 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2022-06-14 13:53 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2022-06-14 13:53 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2022-06-14 14:25 ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-14 14:25 ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-15 8:34 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2022-06-15 8:34 ` Codrin.Ciubotariu
2022-06-11 13:41 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-06-11 13:41 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
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.