Hubert Feurstein wrote on 2012-04-13:
> In the interrupt handler both status-flags (TXCOMP and RXRDY) might be
> pending at the same time. In this case TXCOMP is handled but NOT RXRDY
> which causes a data-loss on the current transfer
Right, this is definitely a bug and must be corrected. Part of my
motivation for exclusively or-ing the irq bits was not reading/
writing beyond the buffer because of (still) pending bits despite
of an already finished transfer, so I gave TXCOMP the highest prio.
Because of other reasons, write_next_byte() already checks this and
does nothing if all data already has been written. My suggestion is
to have read_next_byte() do this check too, as I don't trust the
hardware to reset RXRDY _immediately_ after reading.
> @@ -161,18 +161,22 @@ static irqreturn_t atmel_twi_interrupt(int irq, void
> *dev_id)
> {
> struct at91_twi_dev *dev = dev_id;
> const unsigned status = at91_twi_read(dev, AT91_TWI_SR);
> - const unsigned irqstatus = status & at91_twi_read(dev, AT91_TWI_IMR);
> + unsigned irqstatus = status & at91_twi_read(dev, AT91_TWI_IMR);
> +
> + irqstatus &= (AT91_TWI_RXRDY | AT91_TWI_TXRDY | AT91_TWI_TXCOMP);
The above line should be unnecessary as no more than those interrupts
are enabled anyway. Any special reason for this?
> + if (!irqstatus)
> + return IRQ_NONE;
> +
> + if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_RXRDY)
> + at91_twi_read_next_byte(dev);
> +
> + if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_TXRDY)
> + at91_twi_write_next_byte(dev);
I would like to exclusively or TXRDY and RXRDY as those really should
not be active at the same time. Keeps the decision tree lean ;-).
> @@ -189,6 +193,10 @@ static int
> at91_do_twi_transfer(struct at91_twi_dev *dev) if (dev->msg->flags &
> I2C_M_RD) { unsigned start_flags = AT91_TWI_START;
> + /* clear any pending data */
> + (void)at91_twi_read(dev, AT91_TWI_SR);
> + (void)at91_twi_read(dev, AT91_TWI_RHR);
I would like to modify this, as this is a partial fix for the above bug
which should already be fully fixed by the modified isr.
I fear subtle data-loss if we make (partial) tabula rasa before each
transfer. I'd rather add an assertion to check if the corresponding
irqs are active as an indication for a driver/hw-bug.
I'll repost the driver with your fix on positive feedback from you.
Thanks for tracking this down.
Ben, is there any chance to get this driver into next?
Niko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
