From: "m.olbrich@pengutronix.de" <m.olbrich@pengutronix.de>
To: kernel@pengutronix.de,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] dmaengine: imx-sdma: remove BD_INTR for channel0
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 08:19:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190618061945.26xi2gxkohzac65g@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1560867140.26847.12.camel@nxp.com>
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 06:08:50AM +0000, Robin Gong wrote:
> On 2019-06-17 at 12:15 +0200, m.olbrich@pengutronix.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 02:14:34AM +0000, Robin Gong wrote:
> > > On 2019-06-14 at 18:09 +0000, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 09:25:51AM -0400, Sven Van Asbroeck
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:49 AM Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.c
> > > > > om>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > According to the original report from Sven the issue started
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > happen
> > > > > > on 5.0, so it would be good to add a Fixes tag and Cc stable
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > this fix could be backported to 5.0/5.1 stable trees.
> > > > > Good catch !
> > > > >
> > > > > However, the issue is highly timing-dependent. It will come and
> > > > > go
> > > > > depending
> > > > > on the kernel version, devicetree and defconfig. If it works
> > > > > for me
> > > > > on
> > > > > 4.19, that
> > > > > doesn't mean the bug is gone on 4.19.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at the commit history, I think the commit below
> > > > > possibly
> > > > > introduced the
> > > > > issue. Until this commit, sdma_run_channel() would wait on the
> > > > > interrupt
> > > > > before proceeding. It has been there since 4.8:
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 1d069bfa3c78 ("dmaengine: imx-sdma: ack channel 0 IRQ in
> > > > > the
> > > > > interrupt handler")
> > > > I think this is correct. Starting with this commit, the interrupt
> > > > status fr
> > > > channel 0 is no longer cleared in sdma_run_channel0() and
> > > > sdma_int_handler() is always called for channel 0.
> > > > During firmware loading the interrupts are enabled again just
> > > > before
> > > > the
> > > > clocks are disabled. The interrupt is pending at this moment so
> > > > on a
> > > > single
> > > > core system I think this will always work as expected. If the
> > > > firmware
> > > > loading and the interrupt handler run on different cores then
> > > > this is
> > > > racy.
> > > > Maybe something else changed to make this more likely?
> > > >
> > > > With this new change sdma_int_handler() is no longer called for
> > > > channel 0
> > > > right, so you should also remove the special handling there.
> > > What's 'special handling' should be removed here? Do you mean put
> > > below
> > > pieces of your patch back?
> > > static int sdma_load_script(struct sdma_engine *sdma, void *buf,
> > > int
> > > size,
> > > @@ -727,9 +720,9 @@ static irqreturn_t sdma_int_handler(int irq,
> > > void
> > > *dev_id)
> > > unsigned long stat;
> > >
> > > stat = readl_relaxed(sdma->regs + SDMA_H_INTR);
> > > - /* not interested in channel 0 interrupts */
> > > - stat &= ~1;
> > > writel_relaxed(stat, sdma->regs + SDMA_H_INTR);
> > > + /* channel 0 is special and not handled here, see
> > > run_channel0() */
> > > + stat &= ~1;
> > I think the "stat &= ~1;" can be removed completely. This bit should
> > never
> > be set, now that the interrupt for channel 0 is disabled.
> Okay, but that's harmless, moreover, I like your comment '/* channel 0
> is special and not handled here, see run_channel0() */' which said
> clearly channel0 interrupt is a special one and NOT handled in
> sdma_int_handler. So I'd like to keep it...
That's fine with me. I don't have a strong opinion here. It just felt wrong
to me to silently clear an interrupt that shouldn't occur in the first
place.
Michael
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-18 6:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-14 8:39 [PATCH v1] dmaengine: imx-sdma: remove BD_INTR for channel0 yibin.gong
2019-06-14 10:49 ` Fabio Estevam
2019-06-14 13:25 ` Sven Van Asbroeck
2019-06-14 18:09 ` Michael Olbrich
2019-06-17 2:14 ` Robin Gong
2019-06-17 10:15 ` m.olbrich
2019-06-18 6:08 ` Robin Gong
2019-06-18 6:19 ` m.olbrich [this message]
2019-06-17 2:02 ` Robin Gong
2019-06-17 13:27 ` Sven Van Asbroeck
2019-06-18 5:50 ` Robin Gong
2019-06-14 13:35 ` Sven Van Asbroeck
2019-06-17 1:42 ` Robin Gong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190618061945.26xi2gxkohzac65g@pengutronix.de \
--to=m.olbrich@pengutronix.de \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).