| Message ID | 20160808110501.29586-2-vigneshr@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> wrote: > It is possible that two or more ADC channels can be simultaneously > requested for raw samples, in which case there can be race in access to > FIFO data resulting in loss of samples. > If am335x_tsc_se_set_once() is called again from tiadc_read_raw(), when > ADC is still acquired to sample one of the channels, the second process > might be put into uninterruptible sleep state. Fix these issues, by > protecting FIFO access and channel configurations with a mutex. Since > tiadc_read_raw() might take anywhere between few microseconds to few > milliseconds to finish execution (depending on averaging and delay > values supplied via DT), its better to use mutex instead of spinlock. > > Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> > --- > drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c > index 8a368756881b..bed9977a1863 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c > @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ > > struct tiadc_device { > struct ti_tscadc_dev *mfd_tscadc; > + struct mutex fifo1_lock; /* to protect fifo access */ Are there more than one FIFOs, or even possible? Just wondering the number indexing here.. > int channels; > u8 channel_line[8]; > u8 channel_step[8]; > @@ -359,6 +360,7 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > int *val, int *val2, long mask) > { > struct tiadc_device *adc_dev = iio_priv(indio_dev); > + int ret = IIO_VAL_INT; > int i, map_val; > unsigned int fifo1count, read, stepid; > bool found = false; > @@ -372,6 +374,7 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > if (!step_en) > return -EINVAL; > > + mutex_lock(&adc_dev->fifo1_lock); > fifo1count = tiadc_readl(adc_dev, REG_FIFO1CNT); > while (fifo1count--) > tiadc_readl(adc_dev, REG_FIFO1); > @@ -388,7 +391,8 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > > if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { > am335x_tsc_se_adc_done(adc_dev->mfd_tscadc); > - return -EAGAIN; > + ret = -EAGAIN; > + goto err_unlock; > } > } > map_val = adc_dev->channel_step[chan->scan_index]; > @@ -414,8 +418,11 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > am335x_tsc_se_adc_done(adc_dev->mfd_tscadc); > > if (found == false) > - return -EBUSY; > - return IIO_VAL_INT; > + ret = -EBUSY; > + > +err_unlock: > + mutex_unlock(&adc_dev->fifo1_lock); > + return ret; > } > > static const struct iio_info tiadc_info = { > @@ -483,6 +490,7 @@ static int tiadc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > tiadc_step_config(indio_dev); > tiadc_writel(adc_dev, REG_FIFO1THR, FIFO1_THRESHOLD); > + mutex_init(&adc_dev->fifo1_lock); > > err = tiadc_channel_init(indio_dev, adc_dev->channels); > if (err < 0) > -- > 2.9.2 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tuesday 09 August 2016 03:21 PM, Matt Ranostay wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> wrote: >> It is possible that two or more ADC channels can be simultaneously >> requested for raw samples, in which case there can be race in access to >> FIFO data resulting in loss of samples. >> If am335x_tsc_se_set_once() is called again from tiadc_read_raw(), when >> ADC is still acquired to sample one of the channels, the second process >> might be put into uninterruptible sleep state. Fix these issues, by >> protecting FIFO access and channel configurations with a mutex. Since >> tiadc_read_raw() might take anywhere between few microseconds to few >> milliseconds to finish execution (depending on averaging and delay >> values supplied via DT), its better to use mutex instead of spinlock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> >> --- >> drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c | 14 +++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c >> index 8a368756881b..bed9977a1863 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c >> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c >> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ >> >> struct tiadc_device { >> struct ti_tscadc_dev *mfd_tscadc; >> + struct mutex fifo1_lock; /* to protect fifo access */ > > Are there more than one FIFOs, or even possible? Just wondering the > number indexing here.. ADC IP as such as two FIFOs: FIFO0 and FIFO1. FIFO0 is dedicated for touchscreen channels and FIFO1 is used for ADC channels. Its not possible to use FIFO0 for ADC, but to match h/w register naming, I used above name for mutex.
On 08/08/16 12:05, Vignesh R wrote: > It is possible that two or more ADC channels can be simultaneously > requested for raw samples, in which case there can be race in access to > FIFO data resulting in loss of samples. > If am335x_tsc_se_set_once() is called again from tiadc_read_raw(), when > ADC is still acquired to sample one of the channels, the second process > might be put into uninterruptible sleep state. Fix these issues, by > protecting FIFO access and channel configurations with a mutex. Since > tiadc_read_raw() might take anywhere between few microseconds to few > milliseconds to finish execution (depending on averaging and delay > values supplied via DT), its better to use mutex instead of spinlock. > > Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> Hi, Thanks for the patch. As this is clearly a fix for a long standing issue, I'd like to send it for stable inclusion. Would you mind doing a bit of detective work to added a Fixes tag to say which original patch introduced the issue? I'm going to start pushing back on this in general as it's helpful to the stable maintainers if we provide this info whenever possible. Thanks, Jonathan > --- > drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c > index 8a368756881b..bed9977a1863 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c > @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ > > struct tiadc_device { > struct ti_tscadc_dev *mfd_tscadc; > + struct mutex fifo1_lock; /* to protect fifo access */ > int channels; > u8 channel_line[8]; > u8 channel_step[8]; > @@ -359,6 +360,7 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > int *val, int *val2, long mask) > { > struct tiadc_device *adc_dev = iio_priv(indio_dev); > + int ret = IIO_VAL_INT; > int i, map_val; > unsigned int fifo1count, read, stepid; > bool found = false; > @@ -372,6 +374,7 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > if (!step_en) > return -EINVAL; > > + mutex_lock(&adc_dev->fifo1_lock); > fifo1count = tiadc_readl(adc_dev, REG_FIFO1CNT); > while (fifo1count--) > tiadc_readl(adc_dev, REG_FIFO1); > @@ -388,7 +391,8 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > > if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { > am335x_tsc_se_adc_done(adc_dev->mfd_tscadc); > - return -EAGAIN; > + ret = -EAGAIN; > + goto err_unlock; > } > } > map_val = adc_dev->channel_step[chan->scan_index]; > @@ -414,8 +418,11 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > am335x_tsc_se_adc_done(adc_dev->mfd_tscadc); > > if (found == false) > - return -EBUSY; > - return IIO_VAL_INT; > + ret = -EBUSY; > + > +err_unlock: > + mutex_unlock(&adc_dev->fifo1_lock); > + return ret; > } > > static const struct iio_info tiadc_info = { > @@ -483,6 +490,7 @@ static int tiadc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > tiadc_step_config(indio_dev); > tiadc_writel(adc_dev, REG_FIFO1THR, FIFO1_THRESHOLD); > + mutex_init(&adc_dev->fifo1_lock); > > err = tiadc_channel_init(indio_dev, adc_dev->channels); > if (err < 0) > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Monday 15 August 2016 09:15 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 08/08/16 12:05, Vignesh R wrote: >> It is possible that two or more ADC channels can be simultaneously >> requested for raw samples, in which case there can be race in access to >> FIFO data resulting in loss of samples. >> If am335x_tsc_se_set_once() is called again from tiadc_read_raw(), when >> ADC is still acquired to sample one of the channels, the second process >> might be put into uninterruptible sleep state. Fix these issues, by >> protecting FIFO access and channel configurations with a mutex. Since >> tiadc_read_raw() might take anywhere between few microseconds to few >> milliseconds to finish execution (depending on averaging and delay >> values supplied via DT), its better to use mutex instead of spinlock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> > Hi, > > Thanks for the patch. > > As this is clearly a fix for a long standing issue, I'd like to send > it for stable inclusion. Would you mind doing a bit of detective work > to added a Fixes tag to say which original patch introduced the issue? > Looks to be due to the commit 7ca6740cd1cd4 ("mfd: input: iio: ti_amm335x: Rework TSC/ADC synchronization") Will send v2 with fixes tag. Thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c index 8a368756881b..bed9977a1863 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ struct tiadc_device { struct ti_tscadc_dev *mfd_tscadc; + struct mutex fifo1_lock; /* to protect fifo access */ int channels; u8 channel_line[8]; u8 channel_step[8]; @@ -359,6 +360,7 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, int *val, int *val2, long mask) { struct tiadc_device *adc_dev = iio_priv(indio_dev); + int ret = IIO_VAL_INT; int i, map_val; unsigned int fifo1count, read, stepid; bool found = false; @@ -372,6 +374,7 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, if (!step_en) return -EINVAL; + mutex_lock(&adc_dev->fifo1_lock); fifo1count = tiadc_readl(adc_dev, REG_FIFO1CNT); while (fifo1count--) tiadc_readl(adc_dev, REG_FIFO1); @@ -388,7 +391,8 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { am335x_tsc_se_adc_done(adc_dev->mfd_tscadc); - return -EAGAIN; + ret = -EAGAIN; + goto err_unlock; } } map_val = adc_dev->channel_step[chan->scan_index]; @@ -414,8 +418,11 @@ static int tiadc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, am335x_tsc_se_adc_done(adc_dev->mfd_tscadc); if (found == false) - return -EBUSY; - return IIO_VAL_INT; + ret = -EBUSY; + +err_unlock: + mutex_unlock(&adc_dev->fifo1_lock); + return ret; } static const struct iio_info tiadc_info = { @@ -483,6 +490,7 @@ static int tiadc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) tiadc_step_config(indio_dev); tiadc_writel(adc_dev, REG_FIFO1THR, FIFO1_THRESHOLD); + mutex_init(&adc_dev->fifo1_lock); err = tiadc_channel_init(indio_dev, adc_dev->channels); if (err < 0)
It is possible that two or more ADC channels can be simultaneously requested for raw samples, in which case there can be race in access to FIFO data resulting in loss of samples. If am335x_tsc_se_set_once() is called again from tiadc_read_raw(), when ADC is still acquired to sample one of the channels, the second process might be put into uninterruptible sleep state. Fix these issues, by protecting FIFO access and channel configurations with a mutex. Since tiadc_read_raw() might take anywhere between few microseconds to few milliseconds to finish execution (depending on averaging and delay values supplied via DT), its better to use mutex instead of spinlock. Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> --- drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.c | 14 +++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)