Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1665460 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 07/18] spi: qup: Fix transaction done signaling

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH 07/18] spi: qup: Fix transaction done signaling Varadarajan Narayanan <varada@codeaurora.org> - 2017-06-14 08:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 07/18] spi: qup: Fix transaction done signaling Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org> - 2017-06-14 09:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 07/18] spi: qup: Fix transaction done signaling Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> - 2017-06-14 22:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 07/18] spi: qup: Fix transaction done signaling Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org> - 2017-06-15 07:20 +0200

#1665460 — [PATCH 07/18] spi: qup: Fix transaction done signaling

Wait to signal done until we get all of the interrupts we are expecting
to get for a transaction.  If we don't wait for the input done flag, we
can be inbetween transactions when the done flag comes in and this can
mess up the next transaction.

Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <varada@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-qup.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c b/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
index 2124815..7c22ee4 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
@@ -465,7 +465,8 @@ static irqreturn_t spi_qup_qup_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
 	controller->xfer = xfer;
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&controller->lock, flags);
 
-	if (controller->rx_bytes == xfer->len || error)
+	if ((controller->rx_bytes == xfer->len &&
+		(opflags & QUP_OP_MAX_INPUT_DONE_FLAG)) ||  error)
 		complete(&controller->done);
 
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1665500

Hi Varada,

On 6/14/2017 11:22 AM, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> Wait to signal done until we get all of the interrupts we are expecting
> to get for a transaction.  If we don't wait for the input done flag, we
> can be inbetween transactions when the done flag comes in and this can
> mess up the next transaction.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <varada@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/spi/spi-qup.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c b/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
> index 2124815..7c22ee4 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
> @@ -465,7 +465,8 @@ static irqreturn_t spi_qup_qup_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>  	controller->xfer = xfer;
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&controller->lock, flags);
>  
> -	if (controller->rx_bytes == xfer->len || error)
> +	if ((controller->rx_bytes == xfer->len &&
> +		(opflags & QUP_OP_MAX_INPUT_DONE_FLAG)) ||  error)

 Not sure why we need this additional check, because having read all the
 bytes implies transfer complete (or) why not just check only for
 QUP_OP_MAX_INPUT_DONE_FLAG ?

Regards,
 Sricharan

-- 
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1666179

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:43:43PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
> Hi Varada,
> 
> On 6/14/2017 11:22 AM, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> > Wait to signal done until we get all of the interrupts we are expecting
> > to get for a transaction.  If we don't wait for the input done flag, we
> > can be inbetween transactions when the done flag comes in and this can
> > mess up the next transaction.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <varada@codeaurora.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/spi/spi-qup.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c b/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
> > index 2124815..7c22ee4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
> > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
> > @@ -465,7 +465,8 @@ static irqreturn_t spi_qup_qup_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >  	controller->xfer = xfer;
> >  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&controller->lock, flags);
> >  
> > -	if (controller->rx_bytes == xfer->len || error)
> > +	if ((controller->rx_bytes == xfer->len &&
> > +		(opflags & QUP_OP_MAX_INPUT_DONE_FLAG)) ||  error)
> 
>  Not sure why we need this additional check, because having read all the
>  bytes implies transfer complete (or) why not just check only for
>  QUP_OP_MAX_INPUT_DONE_FLAG ?

So you can receive an interrupt for the last data without it having also
signalled the INPUT_DONE.  That means you'd have one more IRQ come in and if you
don't wait for that, you could start up the next transaction and have an irq
come in that screws up that transaction.

It might be sufficient to just wait for the INPUT_DONE_FLAG.  That cannot be
signalled unless the rx_bytes == xfer->len.

Regards,

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1666466

Hi Andy,

On 6/15/2017 1:21 AM, Andy Gross wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:43:43PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
>> Hi Varada,
>>
>> On 6/14/2017 11:22 AM, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
>>> Wait to signal done until we get all of the interrupts we are expecting
>>> to get for a transaction.  If we don't wait for the input done flag, we
>>> can be inbetween transactions when the done flag comes in and this can
>>> mess up the next transaction.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <varada@codeaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/spi/spi-qup.c | 3 ++-
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c b/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
>>> index 2124815..7c22ee4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-qup.c
>>> @@ -465,7 +465,8 @@ static irqreturn_t spi_qup_qup_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>  	controller->xfer = xfer;
>>>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&controller->lock, flags);
>>>  
>>> -	if (controller->rx_bytes == xfer->len || error)
>>> +	if ((controller->rx_bytes == xfer->len &&
>>> +		(opflags & QUP_OP_MAX_INPUT_DONE_FLAG)) ||  error)
>>
>>  Not sure why we need this additional check, because having read all the
>>  bytes implies transfer complete (or) why not just check only for
>>  QUP_OP_MAX_INPUT_DONE_FLAG ?
> 
> So you can receive an interrupt for the last data without it having also
> signalled the INPUT_DONE.  That means you'd have one more IRQ come in and if you
> don't wait for that, you could start up the next transaction and have an irq
> come in that screws up that transaction.
> 
> It might be sufficient to just wait for the INPUT_DONE_FLAG.  That cannot be
> signalled unless the rx_bytes == xfer->len.
> 

 Right, that should simply it little bit.

Regards,
 Sricharan

-- 
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web