mbox series

[v4,0/5] soundwire: Fixes for spurious and missing UNATTACH

Message ID 20220914160248.1047627-1-rf@opensource.cirrus.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series soundwire: Fixes for spurious and missing UNATTACH | expand

Message

Richard Fitzgerald Sept. 14, 2022, 4:02 p.m. UTC
The bus and cadence code has several bugs that cause UNATTACH notifications
to either be sent spuriously or to be missed.

These can be seen occasionally with a single peripheral on the bus, but are
much more frequent with multiple peripherals, where several peripherals
could change state and report in consecutive PINGs.

The root of all of these bugs seems to be a code design flaw that assumed
every PING status change would be handled separately. However, PINGs are
handled by a workqueue function and there is no guarantee when that function
will be scheduled to run or how much CPU time it will receive. PINGs will
continue while the work function is handling a snapshot of a previous PING
so the code must take account that (a) status could change during the
work function and (b) there can be a backlog of changes before the IRQ work
function runs again.

Tested with 4 peripherals on 1 bus, and 8 peripherals on 2 buses.

CHANGES SINCE V3:
Fixed minor comment typo in patch #4.

Richard Fitzgerald (4):
  soundwire: bus: Don't lose unattach notifications
  soundwire: bus: Don't re-enumerate before status is UNATTACHED
  soundwire: cadence: Fix lost ATTACHED interrupts when enumerating
  soundwire: bus: Don't exit early if no device IDs were programmed

Simon Trimmer (1):
  soundwire: cadence: fix updating slave status when a bus has multiple
    peripherals

 drivers/soundwire/bus.c            | 44 +++++++++++++---
 drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++--------------
 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

Comments

Vinod Koul Sept. 20, 2022, 4:59 a.m. UTC | #1
On 14-09-22, 17:02, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> The bus and cadence code has several bugs that cause UNATTACH notifications
> to either be sent spuriously or to be missed.
> 
> These can be seen occasionally with a single peripheral on the bus, but are
> much more frequent with multiple peripherals, where several peripherals
> could change state and report in consecutive PINGs.
> 
> The root of all of these bugs seems to be a code design flaw that assumed
> every PING status change would be handled separately. However, PINGs are
> handled by a workqueue function and there is no guarantee when that function
> will be scheduled to run or how much CPU time it will receive. PINGs will
> continue while the work function is handling a snapshot of a previous PING
> so the code must take account that (a) status could change during the
> work function and (b) there can be a backlog of changes before the IRQ work
> function runs again.

Applied, thanks