Web lists-archives.com

Re: Sluggish AT91 I2C driver causes SMBus timeouts

On 2017-10-12 16:42, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 07:32 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2017-10-12 13:35, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> I have encountered an "interesting" bug. It silently corrupts data
>>> and is generally nasty...
>>> On an I2C bus, driven by the at91 driver and DMA (an Atmel
>>> sama5d31 chip), I have an 256 byte eeprom (NXP SE97BTP). I'm using
>>> Linux v4.13.
>>> The at24 driver for the eeprom detects that the I2C adapter is
>>> capable of I2C transactions and selects that over SMBus. Reads
>>> are done in 128 byte chunks. However, sometimes there is some
>>> kind of event that disturbs the transactions such that the very
>>> last bit och the very last byte (and the following NACK and STOP)
>>> of such chunks are delayed for a long time (the latest incident
>>> shows 85ms on the scope). That is too long for the eeprom which
>>> is expecting SMBus and times out after about 30 ms. When the
>>> eeprom times out, it just releases the data line so that it is
>>> pulled up high. The I2C driver does not notice this, and when it
>>> finally gets going, it reads a one for the last bit instead of
>>> the expected zero. Since it is the last byte of the read, a NACK
>>> is expected and since the eeprom has timed out the NACK is there.
>>> And the STOP condition also looks normal (expected since it is
>>> generated by the driver itself). So, the driver has not noticed
>>> anything funny. But the data is corrupted.
>>> I can work around this by disabling the SMBus timeout in the eeprom
>>> with:
>>> 	i2cset -f 0 0x18 0x22 0x8100
>>> But that is done on a different I2C address (the eeprom is on
>>> address 0x50), since the chip is a combined temperature sensor and
>>> eeprom, and the SMBus timeout bit is of course in a temperature
>>> sensor register.
>>> HOWEVER, I fail to see how this is limited to my case with this
>>> eeprom. Any SMBus chip with a timeout will suffer the same fate.
>>> The real bug is that this happens without the driver noticing it.
>>> And why is there a 85ms delay in the middle of the last byte?
>>> Sure, I can see why there might be a delay before finishing up
>>> with a STOP condition or between bytes if there needs to be some
>>> DMA setup at some interval, but after the 7th bit of a byte?
>>> For a lot of transactions on the I2C bus there is no delay before
>>> the last bit. And most of the time there is no delay for the
>>> eeprom reads either; the delay only occurs when it feels like it.
>>> This does not feel good at all.
>> I added some traces to i2c-at91.c and, AFAIU, it's the call to
>> at91_twi_read_data_dma_callback that sometimes arrives later than
>> desired. Once the callback runs, the transfer completes swiftly.
>> After reading the comments in that driver I suppose the HW holds
>> on to the last data-bit until it knows whether to ACK or NACK in
>> the following bit.
>> But given this, it is questionable if this driver/HW combo can
>> claim support for SMBus. But then again, I expect many things
>> suffer from similar scheduling delays (presumably that's what's
>> going on) so this is probably not special to i2c-at91.c...
>> Since this is probably a very generic problem and I just happened
>> to hit it for the eeprom, I wonder if it would be ok to add a
>> workaround, as below, to the temperature sensor driver part of this
>> chip? (with suitable comments, defines for the constants etc -
>> setting the 0x0080 bit in reg 0x22 disables the SMBus timeout)
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/jc42.c b/drivers/hwmon/jc42.c
>> index 1bf22eff0b08..3e72bd8e06d1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/jc42.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/jc42.c
>> @@ -416,6 +416,13 @@ static int jc42_detect(struct i2c_client *client, struct i2c_board_info *info)
>>   	if ((cap & 0xff00) || (config & 0xf800))
>>   		return -ENODEV;
>> +	if (manid == NXP_MANID && (devid & SE97_DEVID_MASK) == SE97_DEVID) {
>> +		int smbus = i2c_smbus_read_word_swapped(client, 0x22);
>> +		if (smbus < 0)
>> +			return -ENODEV;
>> +		i2c_smbus_write_word_swapped(client, 0x22, smbus | 0x0080);
>> +	}
>> +
> Outch. Not like that; this would affect every board with this chip, not just this one.

That was kind of the intention. Silent corruption is nasty. But ok, let's
do the opt-in thing.

> We would need something like a DT property to do that (smbus-timeout-disable is used
> in other drivers).
> .. and definitely not in the detect function. This would have to be done in probe.

Arrgh, I did test it, but not properly. The patch passed my tests
because I didn't power-cycle the board and the already disabled timeout
stayed in place for the next boot. I just assumed jc42_detect was
called from probe and it was convenient to have the manufacturer etc
already at hand. Silly silly.

I'll send a proper patch tomorrow with these things taken care of...