[PATCH] soundwire: qcom: update status from device id 1

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

On 16/09/2022 10:39, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/16/22 11:12, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/09/2022 14:10, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/22 14:42, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>>> By default autoenumeration is enabled on QCom SoundWire controller
>>>> which means the core should not be dealing with device 0 w.r.t
>>>> enumeration.
>>>> Currently device 0 status is also shared with SoundWire core which
>>>> confuses
>>>> the core sometimes and we endup adding 0:0:0:0 slave device.
>>>
>>> The change looks fine, but the description of the issue is surprising.
>>
>> Thanks Pierre,
>>
>>>
>>> Whether autoenumeration is enabled or not is irrelevant, by spec the
>>> device0 cannot be in ALERT status and throw in-band interrupts to the
>>> host with this mechanism.
>>
>> This issue is more of around enumeration stage in specific during device
>> status change interrupt from controller. Sharing the device 0 status
>> with core makes it think that there is a device with 0:0:0:0 address and
>> it tries to park device to group 13.
> Still not clear, sorry, see my comment below.


> 
>>
>>
>> --srini
>>
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/soundwire/qcom.c | 4 ++--
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/qcom.c b/drivers/soundwire/qcom.c
>>>> index e21a3306bf01..871e4d8b32c7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/soundwire/qcom.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/qcom.c
>>>> @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ static int
>>>> qcom_swrm_get_alert_slave_dev_num(struct qcom_swrm_ctrl *ctrl)
>>>>          ctrl->reg_read(ctrl, SWRM_MCP_SLV_STATUS, &val);
>>>>    -    for (dev_num = 0; dev_num <= SDW_MAX_DEVICES; dev_num++) {
>>>> +    for (dev_num = 1; dev_num <= SDW_MAX_DEVICES; dev_num++) {
>>>>            status = (val >> (dev_num * SWRM_MCP_SLV_STATUS_SZ));
>>>>              if ((status & SWRM_MCP_SLV_STATUS_MASK) ==
>>>> SDW_SLAVE_ALERT) {
> 
> can this really happen?
> 
I have not see this happening, I had to change this line for consistency 
reasons due to other changes in the patch.

Only case the issue was seen is during enumeration.

> Device0 cannot be in alert status, can it? The only this it can do is
> assert PREQ and set the Device0 status to 1 (ATTACHED). I don't get how
> a device status could be 2.
> 
> So even if the status is shared somehow,I don't see how this could be
> related to parking the device as suggested above. If the condition is
> always false then changing the loop counter from 0 to 1 would not have
> an effect?

The reason why core tries to park this device is because it sees 
status[0] as SDW_SLAVE_ATTACHED and start programming the device id, 
however reading DEVID registers return zeros which does not match to any 
of the slaves in the list and the core attempts to park this device to 
Group 13.




--srini

> 
> 
>>>> @@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ static void qcom_swrm_get_device_status(struct
>>>> qcom_swrm_ctrl *ctrl)
>>>>        ctrl->reg_read(ctrl, SWRM_MCP_SLV_STATUS, &val);
>>>>        ctrl->slave_status = val;
>>>>    -    for (i = 0; i <= SDW_MAX_DEVICES; i++) {
>>>> +    for (i = 1; i <= SDW_MAX_DEVICES; i++) {
>>>>            u32 s;
>>>>              s = (val >> (i * 2));