Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] spmi: apple: check transaction status
Janne Grunau <[email protected]> Wed, 5 Aug 2026 14:06:33 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 12:11:13PM +0200, Sasha Finkelstein wrote: > From: Alba Mendez <[email protected]> > > Check for parity errors and missing command ACKs > > Signed-off-by: Alba Mendez <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Finkelstein <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/spmi/spmi-apple-controller.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi-apple-controller.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi-apple-controller.c > index 4d5356bf9bbf..7ebf899edf17 100644 > --- a/drivers/spmi/spmi-apple-controller.c > +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-apple-controller.c > @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ > * spmi-pmic-arb.c Copyright (c) 2021, The Linux Foundation. > */ > > +#include <linux/bitfield.h> > +#include <linux/bits.h> > #include <linux/io.h> > #include <linux/iopoll.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > @@ -23,6 +25,12 @@ > #define SPMI_RSP_REG 0x8 > #define SPMI_ACT_REG 0xa4 > > +/* SPMI_RSP_REG reply word */ > +#define SPMI_REPLY_FRAME_PARITY_STATUS GENMASK(31, 16) > +#define SPMI_REPLY_ACK BIT(15) > +#define SPMI_REPLY_SLAVE_ID GENMASK(14, 8) > +#define SPMI_REPLY_CMD GENMASK(7, 0) > + > #define SPMI_ACT_FIFO_FLUSH BIT(0) > #define SPMI_RX_FIFO_EMPTY BIT(24) > > @@ -66,7 +74,7 @@ static int spmi_read_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid, > { > struct apple_spmi *spmi = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl); > u32 spmi_cmd = apple_spmi_pack_cmd(opc, sid, saddr, len); > - u32 rsp; > + u32 reply, rsp; > size_t len_read = 0; > u8 i; > int ret; > @@ -82,12 +90,12 @@ static int spmi_read_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid, > if (ret) > return ret; > > - /* Discard SPMI reply status */ > - readl(spmi->regs + SPMI_RSP_REG); > + reply = readl(spmi->regs + SPMI_RSP_REG); > > /* Read SPMI data reply */ > while (len_read < len) { > if (readl(spmi->regs + SPMI_STATUS_REG) & SPMI_RX_FIFO_EMPTY) { > + spmi->prev_fail = true; should this have been in the previous patch? Not sure if the flush helps in this case but the line looks in this change out-of-place > dev_err_ratelimited(&ctrl->dev, > "FIFO lacks reply data, controller stuck?\n"); > return -EIO; > @@ -105,6 +113,10 @@ static int spmi_read_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid, > spmi->prev_fail = true; > } > > + if (~FIELD_GET(SPMI_REPLY_FRAME_PARITY_STATUS, reply) & ((1 << len) - 1)) { > + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "some frames failed parity check\n"); > + return -EIO; > + } > return 0; > } > > @@ -113,6 +125,7 @@ static int spmi_write_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid, > { > struct apple_spmi *spmi = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl); > u32 spmi_cmd = apple_spmi_pack_cmd(opc, sid, saddr, len); > + u32 reply; > size_t i = 0, j; > int ret; > > @@ -136,14 +149,17 @@ static int spmi_write_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid, > if (ret) > return ret; > > - /* Discard */ > - readl(spmi->regs + SPMI_RSP_REG); > + reply = readl(spmi->regs + SPMI_RSP_REG); > > if (!(readl(spmi->regs + SPMI_STATUS_REG) & SPMI_RX_FIFO_EMPTY)) { > dev_warn(&ctrl->dev, "FIFO has extra data\n"); > spmi->prev_fail = true; > } > > + if (!FIELD_GET(SPMI_REPLY_ACK, reply)) { > + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "command not acknowledged\n"); > + return -EIO; > + } > return 0; > } besides the single misplaced line Reviewed-by: Janne Grunau <[email protected]> Janne