linux-i2c.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Guenter Roeck' <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org>,
	"jdelvare@suse.com" <jdelvare@suse.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Errant readings on LM81 with T2080 SoC
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 09:25:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1a7d43e6a16c46cdbe63b497b29ac453@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <725c5e51-65df-e17d-e2da-0982efacf2d2@roeck-us.net>

From: Linuxppc-dev Guenter Roeck
> Sent: 11 March 2021 21:35
> 
> On 3/11/21 1:17 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> >
> > On 11/03/21 9:18 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >>> Bummer. What is really weird is that you see clock stretching under
> >>> CPU load. Normally clock stretching is triggered by the device, not
> >>> by the host.
> >> One example: Some hosts need an interrupt per byte to know if they
> >> should send ACK or NACK. If that interrupt is delayed, they stretch the
> >> clock.
> >>
> > It feels like something like that is happening. Looking at the T2080
> > Reference manual there is an interesting timing diagram (Figure 14-2 if
> > someone feels like looking it up). It shows SCL low between the ACK for
> > the address and the data byte. I think if we're delayed in sending the
> > next byte we could violate Ttimeout or Tlow:mext from the SMBUS spec.
> >
> 
> I think that really leaves you only two options that I can see:
> Rework the driver to handle critical actions (such as setting TXAK,
> and everything else that might result in clock stretching) in the
> interrupt handler, or rework the driver to handle everything in
> a high priority kernel thread.

I'm not sure a high priority kernel thread will help.
Without CONFIG_PREEMPT (which has its own set of nasties)
a RT process won't be scheduled until the processor it last
ran on does a reschedule.
I don't think a kernel thread will be any different from a
user process running under the RT scheduler.

I'm trying to remember the smbus spec (without remembering the I2C one).
While basically a clock+data bit-bang the slave is allowed to drive
the clock low to extend a cycle.
It may be allowed to do this at any point?
The master can generate the data at almost any rate (below the maximum)
but I don't think it can go down to zero.
But I do remember one of the specs having a timeout.

But I'd have thought the slave should answer the cycle correctly
regardless of any 'random' delays the master adds in.
Unless you are getting away with de-asserting chipselect?

The only implementation I've done is one an FPGA so doesn't have
worry about interrupt latencies.
It doesn't actually support clock stretching; it wasn't in the
code I started from and none of the slaves we need to connect to
ever does it.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-03-12  9:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-07 22:52 Errant readings on LM81 with T2080 SoC Chris Packham
2021-03-08  0:31 ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-08  2:27   ` Chris Packham
2021-03-08  4:37     ` Chris Packham
2021-03-08  4:59       ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-08 20:27         ` Chris Packham
2021-03-08 22:39           ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-10  2:19           ` Chris Packham
2021-03-10  5:06             ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-10 21:48               ` Chris Packham
2021-03-11  7:41                 ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-11  8:18                   ` Wolfram Sang
2021-03-11 15:19                     ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-11 21:17                     ` Chris Packham
2021-03-11 21:34                       ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-11 23:47                         ` Chris Packham
2021-03-12  0:07                           ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-12  0:19                             ` Chris Packham
2021-03-12  9:25                         ` David Laight [this message]
2021-03-14 21:26                           ` Chris Packham
2021-03-15  9:46                             ` David Laight
2021-03-18  5:44                             ` Wolfram Sang
2021-03-18  3:46                         ` Chris Packham
2021-03-18  4:02                           ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-18  5:39                             ` Wolfram Sang
2021-03-08 22:10         ` Chris Packham
2021-03-09  4:36           ` Chris Packham
2021-03-09  5:24             ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-09 23:35   ` Chris Packham
2021-03-10  3:29     ` Guenter Roeck

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=1a7d43e6a16c46cdbe63b497b29ac453@AcuMS.aculab.com \
    --to=david.laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=Chris.Packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz \
    --cc=jdelvare@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=wsa@kernel.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).