mail archive of the barebox mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robin van der Gracht <robin@protonic.nl>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Barebox <barebox@lists.infradead.org>,
	Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Boot hangs during sdhci_transfer_data_dma
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:32:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a78dad2e4e22d236ba30c237a84367a9@protonic.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220621074645.GS1615@pengutronix.de>

Hi Sascha,

On 2022-06-21 09:46, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 04:33:02PM +0200, Robin van der Gracht wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Today I tried to run barebox with CONFIG_KEYBOARD_GPIO=y added to my 
>> config.
>> and noticed my board hangs during boot. When I modify the probe function to
>> run without registering the poller[1] it boots as expected.
>> 
>> I started digging into the code to see how far the boot gets when I do
>> register the poller. I found that Barebox hangs in a do/while loop in
>> sdhci_transfer_data_dma[2].
>> 
>> The contents of the interrupt status (SDHCI_INT_STATUS) is 0 and stays that
>> way forever trapping the process in the loop.
>> 
>> Call stack:
>> 
>> initcall -> barebox_of_populate
>>   state_probe                                          drivers/misc/state.c
>>     state_new_from_node                                common/state/state.c
>>       of_find_path_by_node                             drivers/of/of_path.c
>>         __of_find_path                                 drivers/of/of_path.c
>>           device_detect                                
>> drivers/base/driver.c
>>             mci_detect_card                            
>> drivers/mci/mci-core.c
>>               mci_card_probe                           
>> drivers/mci/mci-core.c
>>                 mci_startup                            
>> drivers/mci/mci-core.c
>>                   mci_startup_mmc                      
>> drivers/mci/mci-core.c
>>                     mmc_compare_ext_csds               
>> drivers/mci/mci-core.c
>>                       mci_send_ext_csd                 
>> drivers/mci/mci-core.c
>>                         mci_send_cmd                   
>> drivers/mci/mci-core.c
>>                           esdhc_send_cmd
>> drivers/mci/imx-esdhc.c
>>                             __esdhc_send_cmd
>> drivers/mci/imx-esdhc-common.c
>>                               sdhci_transfer_data_dma  drivers/mci/sdhci.c
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not sure how this happens. It's not the first transfer taking place. I
>> figured that mayby the poller[1] just adds some cpu load that opens up a
>> window for this to occur.
>> 
>> Maybe something else cleared the status register right before we entered 
>> the
>> loop. Thats when I spotted this read/write construction[3]. It's executed
>> right before we enter the do/while loop and (over)writes to the irq status
>> register.
>> 
>> I removed the line with the write command[3] and my board boots as 
>> expected.
>> Why are we (over)writing the status register right after reading it?
> 
> The idea is likely that we clear the interrupts that we just handled. It
> seems by the time the status register is overwritten the DMA transfer is
> already ongoing, and in your case even already done.

I can confirm this. When the data transfer is still ongoing the status
register holds 0x000000001 (SDHCI_INT_CMD_COMPLETE). A few lines above
the write there is a busy wait for this bit to be set.

When my board hangs the status register holds 0x0000000b at the timen it is
cleared. Which means the DMA engine has stopped on a buffer boundary.
Apparently this can sometimes happen shortly after starting.

> We should only ever
> clear the bits we have handled, like sdhci_transfer_data_dma() does with
> 
> 	sdhci_write32(sdhci, SDHCI_INT_STATUS, SDHCI_INT_DMA);

Ack. This would suffice:

sdhci_write32(&host->sdhci, SDHCI_INT_STATUS, SDHCI_INT_CMD_COMPLETE);


> 
> Apart from this line the code never checks the same bit twice, so
> clearing anything shoudn't be necessary. Clearing the status register
> once either at the start or the end of the function should be enough.
> 
> I think the right thing to do is just to remove the erroneous status
> register write like you already did.

I'll submit a patch that removes the write. Thank you for thinking along.

- Robin



  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-21  9:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-20 14:33 Robin van der Gracht
2022-06-21  7:46 ` Sascha Hauer
2022-06-21  9:32   ` Robin van der Gracht [this message]
2022-06-21 10:07   ` Robin van der Gracht

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=a78dad2e4e22d236ba30c237a84367a9@protonic.nl \
    --to=robin@protonic.nl \
    --cc=andrew.smirnov@gmail.com \
    --cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
    /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