[Intel-gfx] [RFC 1/4] x86/platform/intel/iosf_mbi: Add a mutex for punit access

Hans de Goede hdegoede at redhat.com
Sun Jan 15 11:10:25 UTC 2017


On 13-01-17 17:30, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 05:06:52PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On 01/13/2017 10:26 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 03:21:13PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> On 02-01-17 15:12, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 09:14:00PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>>> The punit on baytrail / cherrytrail systems is not only accessed through
>>>>>> the iosf_mbi functions, but also by the i915 code. Add a mutex to protect
>>>>>> the punit against simultaneous accesses and 2 functions to lock / unlock
>>>>>> this mutex.
>>>>> I'm not sure which part of punit you're actually trying to protect
>>>>> here. Some specific registers?
>>>> The theory I'm going by is that for certain actions / certain requests
>>>> we send to the punit, the punit needs to access the (axp288) pmic, to
>>>> change (or enable / disable) certain voltages.
>>> At least for cpu/display/gt voltages that shouldn't really be the case.
>>> The vcc/vnn/vgg rails are controlled via svid, not i2c.
>> Are you sure? The ax288 pmic does not have a svid interface, only
>> an i2c interface, and AFAICT its buck DCDC converters are used to
>> feed all of these.
> Yes, looks like you're right. I guess someone didn't want to spend three
> pins for svid.
>>> It also feels quite hand wavy since the punit could do whatever at
>>> any time AFAIK. Eg. if there's some thermal event or something the
>>> punit might kick into action. So trying to protect this from the OS
>>> side might not be able to avoid these problems entirely. It feels like
>>> there really should be some kind of shared hardware/firmware mutex
>>> with the punit to arbitrate access to the i2c bus.
>> Right, and there is such a mutex (which only gets used on systems
>> with an axp288 pmic...) and we are taking this mutex before starting
>> an i2c transaction on the pmic i2c bus. But this does not seem to be
>> enough. It seems the the punit does not check the mutex before
>> certain OS / host triggered actions. I guess it expects the host to
>> do this itself.
>> Please see my new (non RFC) version of this series I've posted.
>> There are at least 2 problems when relying solely on the punit
>> pmic i2c bus sempaphore:
>> 1) CPU C1 <-> C6 transations happening while the pmic i2c bus
>> is being accessed by the host cause the system to hang
>> 2) i915 (runtime) suspend resume fails every other attempt
>> with timeouts when trying to get a forcewake lock inn i915,
>> often followed by a system freeze shortly after this.
> Hmm. But forcewake works at other times?

It depends on the workload, I believe the forcewake timeouts are
caused by e.g. the axp288 fuel-gauge driver directly accessing
the pmic i2c bus at the same time as the i915 driver is doing a
forcewake. So in essence this is race and as such not 100%
reproducible. With my workload (Fedora 25 with gnome3) full suspend
+ resume is a good way to reproduce. The bug reporter
(tagorereddy) in:


Is seeing this during normal use when using a kde / plasma desktop.

Some history, this problem started surfacing when I fixed the
i2c punit semaphore code in i2c-designware-baytrail.c to actually
work on cht, before that systems with an axp288 any attempt to
access the i2c bus by e.g. the axp288_fuel_gauge driver would result
in -ETIMEOUT as the code would fail to acquire the punit i2c bus
semaphore, this i2c-designware-baytrail.c cht bug has so far protected
users against the described race (*).

tagorereddy then tried my patches to get battery monitoring working
on his cht device. Then he reported back in the above bug that he
was getting forcewake timeouts + system hangs. I only noticed I could
reproduce them myself on resume later (which was quite useful in
actually developing the proposed fix).

 > That seems quite strange.
> Runtime suspend itself shouldn't really do much, and if we're still
> poking at the the hw then we haven't really even suspended anything
> yet, so having failing forcewake doesn't sounds at all good.

Sorry, I'm actually seeing these on a (full not runtime) resume,
not suspend, it seems that at resume my setup has the ideal
circumstances to hit the race.



*) Note as described in the cover letter of the non RFC version of
this patch-set:


Disabling access to the pmic i2c bus (as the fixed bug does) is
not a workable solution:

"Unfortunately that will cause some major issues on affected devices:
-No battery monitoring
-No "AC" plugged in monitoring
-If booted with a normal USB-A -> micro-USB cable, or no cable, plugged
  in and then the user replaces the cable with an otg USB-host cable /
  adapter, the id-pin shorting will enable a 5v boost convertor, but we
  need to disable the pmic's USB-Vbus path otherwise it will start drawing
  current from the boost convertor, leading to aprox 300mA of extra
  battery drain, this is done by the axp288_charger driver, which needs
  direct i2c access to the pmic bus"

More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list