From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wp530.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp530.webpack.hosteurope.de [80.237.130.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E60F17A for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2022 13:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [2a02:8108:963f:de38:eca4:7d19:f9a2:22c5]; authenticated by wp530.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1o01Mz-0003Hv-Qn; Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:41:41 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:41:41 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 Subject: Re: Regression: at24 eeprom writing times out on sama5d3 Content-Language: en-US To: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, "regressions@lists.linux.dev" References: <074b39c5-55fc-2bc1-072d-aef1070e284d@axentia.se> From: Thorsten Leemhuis In-Reply-To: <074b39c5-55fc-2bc1-072d-aef1070e284d@axentia.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;regressions@leemhuis.info;1654954912;89e5426c; X-HE-SMSGID: 1o01Mz-0003Hv-Qn [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