[PATCH RESEND RESEND] can: m_can: implement errata "Needless activation of MRAF irq"

* [PATCH RESEND RESEND] can: m_can: implement errata "Needless activation of MRAF irq"
@ 2019-05-24  7:11 ` Eugen.Hristev
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Eugen.Hristev @ 2019-05-24  7:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: b29396, Nicolas.Ferre, mkl, davem, linux-can, netdev,
	linux-kernel, wg, linux-arm-kernel, Ludovic.Desroches,
	alexandre.belloni
  Cc: Eugen.Hristev

From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@microchip.com>

During frame reception while the MCAN is in Error Passive state
and the Receive Error Counter has thevalue MCAN_ECR.REC = 127, it may happen
that MCAN_IR.MRAF is set although there was no Message RAM access failure.
If MCAN_IR.MRAF is enabled, an interrupt to the Host CPU is generated.
Work around:
The Message RAM Access Failure interrupt routine needs to check whether
 MCAN_ECR.RP = '1' and MCAN_ECR.REC = '127'.
In this case, reset MCAN_IR.MRAF. No further action is required.
This affects versions older than 3.2.0

Errata explained on Sama5d2 SoC which includes this hardware block:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/SAMA5D2-Family-Silicon-Errata-and-Data-Sheet-Clarification-DS80000803B.pdf chapter 6.2

Reproducibility: If 2 devices with m_can are connected back to back,
configuring different bitrate on them will lead to interrupt storm on the
receiving side, with error "Message RAM access failure occurred".
Another way is to have a bad hardware connection. Bad wire connection can lead
to this issue as well.

This patch fixes the issue according to provided workaround.

Reviewed-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@microchip.com>
Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@microchip.com>
---

Hello,

This patch was initially sent on March 4th:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=155171066003723&w=2
Resend on April 2nd:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=155617409826271&w=2

Is there any reason why there is no answer ? Am I not sending this patch
to the right people?

Thank you,
Eugen

 drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c b/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c
index 9b44940..deb274a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c
+++ b/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c
@@ -822,6 +822,27 @@ static int m_can_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int quota)
 	if (!irqstatus)
 		goto end;
 
+	/* Errata workaround for issue "Needless activation of MRAF irq"
+	 * During frame reception while the MCAN is in Error Passive state
+	 * and the Receive Error Counter has the value MCAN_ECR.REC = 127,
+	 * it may happen that MCAN_IR.MRAF is set although there was no
+	 * Message RAM access failure.
+	 * If MCAN_IR.MRAF is enabled, an interrupt to the Host CPU is generated
+	 * The Message RAM Access Failure interrupt routine needs to check
+	 * whether MCAN_ECR.RP = ’1’ and MCAN_ECR.REC = 127.
+	 * In this case, reset MCAN_IR.MRAF. No further action is required.
+	 */
+	if ((priv->version <= 31) && (irqstatus & IR_MRAF) &&
+	    (m_can_read(priv, M_CAN_ECR) & ECR_RP)) {
+		struct can_berr_counter bec;
+
+		__m_can_get_berr_counter(dev, &bec);
+		if (bec.rxerr == 127) {
+			m_can_write(priv, M_CAN_IR, IR_MRAF);
+			irqstatus &= ~IR_MRAF;
+		}
+	}
+
 	psr = m_can_read(priv, M_CAN_PSR);
 	if (irqstatus & IR_ERR_STATE)
 		work_done += m_can_handle_state_errors(dev, psr);
-- 
2.7.4


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread