[PATCH v1 5/6] i2c: iproc: handle master read request

[Dhananjay Phadke <dphadke@linux.microsoft.com>]

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:52:53 +0530, Rayagonda Kokatanur wrote:
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
> 
> -		} else if (status & BIT(IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT)) {
> -			/* Start of SMBUS for Master Read */
> +					I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_REQUESTED, &rx_data);
> +			iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd = true;
> +			iproc_i2c->slave_read_complete = false;
> +		} else if (rx_status == I2C_SLAVE_RX_DATA &&
> +			   iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd) {
> +			/* Middle of SMBUS Master write */
>  			i2c_slave_event(iproc_i2c->slave,
> -					I2C_SLAVE_READ_REQUESTED, &value);
> -			iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, S_TX_OFFSET, value);
> +					I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED, &rx_data);
> +		} else if (rx_status == I2C_SLAVE_RX_END &&
> +			   iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd) {
> +			/* End of SMBUS Master write */
> +			if (iproc_i2c->slave_rx_only)
> +				i2c_slave_event(iproc_i2c->slave,
> +						I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED,
> +						&rx_data);
> +
> +			i2c_slave_event(iproc_i2c->slave, I2C_SLAVE_STOP,
> +					&rx_data);
> +		} else if (rx_status == I2C_SLAVE_RX_FIFO_EMPTY) {
> +			iproc_i2c->rx_start_rcvd = false;
> +			iproc_i2c->slave_read_complete = true;
> +			break;
> +		}
>  
> -			val = BIT(S_CMD_START_BUSY_SHIFT);
> -			iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, S_CMD_OFFSET, val);
> +		rx_bytes++;

rx_bytes should be incremented only along with I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED event?

> 
> +static bool bcm_iproc_i2c_slave_isr(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c,
> +				    u32 status)
> +{
> +	u32 val;
> +	u8 value;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Slave events in case of master-write, master-write-read and,
> +	 * master-read
> +	 *
> +	 * Master-write     : only IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT event
> +	 * Master-write-read: both IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT and IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT
> +	 *                    events
> +	 * Master-read      : both IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT and IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT
> +	 *                    events or only IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT
> +	 */
> +	if (status & BIT(IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT) ||
> +	    status & BIT(IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT)) {
> +		/* disable slave interrupts */
> +		val = iproc_i2c_rd_reg(iproc_i2c, IE_OFFSET);
> +		val &= ~iproc_i2c->slave_int_mask;
> +		iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, IE_OFFSET, val);
> +
> +		if (status & BIT(IS_S_RD_EVENT_SHIFT))
> +			/* Master-write-read request */
> +			iproc_i2c->slave_rx_only = false;
> +		else
> +			/* Master-write request only */
> +			iproc_i2c->slave_rx_only = true;
> +
> +		/* schedule tasklet to read data later */
> +		tasklet_schedule(&iproc_i2c->slave_rx_tasklet);
> +
> +		/* clear only IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT interrupt */
> +		iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, IS_OFFSET,
> +				 BIT(IS_S_RX_EVENT_SHIFT));
> 

Both tasklet and isr are writing to status (IS_OFFSET) reg.

The tasklet seems to be batching up rx fifo reads because of time-sensitive
Master-write-read transaction? Linux I2C framework is byte interface anyway.
Can the need to batch reads be avoided by setting slave rx threshold for
interrupt (S_FIFO_RX_THLD) to 1-byte? 

Also, wouldn't tasklets be susceptible to other interrupts? If fifo reads
have to be batched up, can it be changed to threaded irq?