qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/1] hw/i2c/aspeed: Fix old reg slave receive


From: Cédric Le Goater
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] hw/i2c/aspeed: Fix old reg slave receive
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 11:02:37 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0

On 8/25/22 10:04, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 04:31:50PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 8/23/22 19:27, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:23:55AM +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote:
On Aug 20 15:57, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
I think when Klaus ported his slave mode changes from the original patch
series to the rewritten I2C module, he changed the behavior of the first
byte that is received by the slave device.

What's supposed to happen is that the AspeedI2CBus's slave device's
i2c_event callback should run, and if the event is "send_async", then it
should populate the byte buffer with the 8-bit I2C address that is being
sent to. Since we only support "send_async", the lowest bit should
always be 0 (indicating that the master is requesting to send data).

This is the code Klaus had previously, for reference. [1]

      switch (event) {
      case I2C_START_SEND:
          bus->buf = bus->dev_addr << 1;

          bus->buf &= I2CD_BYTE_BUF_RX_MASK;
          bus->buf <<= I2CD_BYTE_BUF_RX_SHIFT;

          bus->intr_status |= (I2CD_INTR_SLAVE_ADDR_RX_MATCH | 
I2CD_INTR_RX_DONE);
          aspeed_i2c_set_state(bus, I2CD_STXD);

          break;

[1]: 
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20220331165737.1073520-4-its@irrelevant.dk/

Signed-off-by: Peter Delevoryas <peter@pjd.dev>
Fixes: a8d48f59cd021b25 ("hw/i2c/aspeed: add slave device in old register mode")
---
   hw/i2c/aspeed_i2c.c         | 8 +++++---
   include/hw/i2c/aspeed_i2c.h | 1 +
   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/i2c/aspeed_i2c.c b/hw/i2c/aspeed_i2c.c
index 42c6d69b82..c166fd20fa 100644
--- a/hw/i2c/aspeed_i2c.c
+++ b/hw/i2c/aspeed_i2c.c
@@ -1131,7 +1131,9 @@ static int aspeed_i2c_bus_slave_event(I2CSlave *slave, 
enum i2c_event event)
       AspeedI2CBus *bus = ASPEED_I2C_BUS(qbus->parent);
       uint32_t reg_intr_sts = aspeed_i2c_bus_intr_sts_offset(bus);
       uint32_t reg_byte_buf = aspeed_i2c_bus_byte_buf_offset(bus);
-    uint32_t value;
+    uint32_t reg_dev_addr = aspeed_i2c_bus_dev_addr_offset(bus);
+    uint32_t dev_addr = SHARED_ARRAY_FIELD_EX32(bus->regs, reg_dev_addr,
+                                                SLAVE_DEV_ADDR1);
       if (aspeed_i2c_is_new_mode(bus->controller)) {
           return aspeed_i2c_bus_new_slave_event(bus, event);
@@ -1139,8 +1141,8 @@ static int aspeed_i2c_bus_slave_event(I2CSlave *slave, 
enum i2c_event event)
       switch (event) {
       case I2C_START_SEND_ASYNC:
-        value = SHARED_ARRAY_FIELD_EX32(bus->regs, reg_byte_buf, TX_BUF);
-        SHARED_ARRAY_FIELD_DP32(bus->regs, reg_byte_buf, RX_BUF, value << 1);
+        /* Bit[0] == 0 indicates "send". */
+        SHARED_ARRAY_FIELD_DP32(bus->regs, reg_byte_buf, RX_BUF, dev_addr << 
1);
           ARRAY_FIELD_DP32(bus->regs, I2CD_INTR_STS, SLAVE_ADDR_RX_MATCH, 1);
           SHARED_ARRAY_FIELD_DP32(bus->regs, reg_intr_sts, RX_DONE, 1);
diff --git a/include/hw/i2c/aspeed_i2c.h b/include/hw/i2c/aspeed_i2c.h
index 300a89b343..adc904d6c1 100644
--- a/include/hw/i2c/aspeed_i2c.h
+++ b/include/hw/i2c/aspeed_i2c.h
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ REG32(I2CD_CMD, 0x14) /* I2CD Command/Status */
       SHARED_FIELD(M_TX_CMD, 1, 1)
       SHARED_FIELD(M_START_CMD, 0, 1)
   REG32(I2CD_DEV_ADDR, 0x18) /* Slave Device Address */
+    SHARED_FIELD(SLAVE_DEV_ADDR1, 0, 7)
   REG32(I2CD_POOL_CTRL, 0x1C) /* Pool Buffer Control */
       SHARED_FIELD(RX_COUNT, 24, 5)
       SHARED_FIELD(RX_SIZE, 16, 5)
--
2.37.1


Nice catch Peter! I'm not sure how I messed that up like that.

Reviewed-by: Klaus Jensen <k.jensen@samsung.com>

Thanks Klaus. Just realized I forgot to cc you on this, sorry about
that.

Do we still have time for 7.1 ?

Is this question for me, or for Peter Maydell or someone else working on the
release? I think they might still be accepting some patches, or deciding if rc4
is necessary: I've created this issue to bring awareness to this, since that
seems like the right way to track this for the release.

https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/1174

Thanks,

I don't have any special need for 7.1, since our team branches off of master and
regularly pulls in updates.

I think it is worth fixing it for 7.1 since we just introduced slave mode
in this release. Hence the late PR. I would have preferred doing it sooner
but I am out of office and this increases latency.

C.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]