[edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe: Improve Error handling of Ufs Pass Thru driver
Wu, Hao A
hao.a.wu at intel.com
Wed Feb 24 01:20:56 UTC 2021
Hello Liming,
I have a patch that would like to confirm with you that whether it can be merged into the upcoming edk2-stable202102 tag.
This is a feature request: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3217
In the BZ tracker, there are 3 improvements mentioned for UfsPassThruDxe.
According to Purna, he would like to have 1 of the improvements (improvement #3 in BZ-3217) be merged and catch the stable tag.
I have given the 'R-b' tag for improvement #3 already (https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/72121)
My thought is that we can break BZ-3217 into multiple feature requests:
1. BZ-3217: Updated its title and description to only cover improvement #3
2. File new BZ feature requests to cover improvement #1 & #2
What is your suggestion for this case? Thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Hao Wu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bandaru, Purna Chandra Rao <purna.chandra.rao.bandaru at intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:36 PM
> To: Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu at intel.com>; devel at edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Albecki, Mateusz <mateusz.albecki at intel.com>; Ni, Ray
> <ray.ni at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe:
> Improve Error handling of Ufs Pass Thru driver
>
> Hi Wu, Hao A
>
> I am trying to focus on merging patch#1 for now to unblock boot issues.
> March 6th might be too late, May I request you to expedite any other
> alternatives like exceptions/overrides?
> For the remaining two patches I will get back to you with the plan after
> discussing with WSIV and MVE teams on the protocol analyzer tools etc.
>
> Thanks
> ~Purna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu at intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 6:46 AM
> To: Bandaru, Purna Chandra Rao <purna.chandra.rao.bandaru at intel.com>;
> devel at edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Albecki, Mateusz <mateusz.albecki at intel.com>; Ni, Ray
> <ray.ni at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe:
> Improve Error handling of Ufs Pass Thru driver
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bandaru, Purna Chandra Rao
> <purna.chandra.rao.bandaru at intel.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1:11 AM
> > To: Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu at intel.com>; devel at edk2.groups.io
> > Cc: Albecki, Mateusz <mateusz.albecki at intel.com>; Ni, Ray
> > <ray.ni at intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe:
> > Improve Error handling of Ufs Pass Thru driver
> >
> > Thank you Hai Bu for the response.
> >
> > I have broken this into three separate patches. There were no specific
> > recommendation in the speciation for seen multiple issues on all the
> > UFS platforms like LKF, ADP-P and EHK.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> After quickly going through the new series sent, I do not see my previous
> inline comments and questions get addressed.
> Could you please help to provide your feedbacks and update the patches?
>
>
> > And these changes worked on all the three with various UFS cards.
> > Can you please review and help to get this changes at the earliest in
> > master as well as Downstream/master.
>
>
> Sorry, since there is an upcoming stable tag approaching, at this moment, I
> prefer to hold this feature after the stable tag (March 6th).
>
> Best Regards,
> Hao Wu
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > ~Purna
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu at intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 2:10 PM
> > To: devel at edk2.groups.io; Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu at intel.com>; Bandaru,
> > Purna Chandra Rao <purna.chandra.rao.bandaru at intel.com>
> > Cc: Albecki, Mateusz <mateusz.albecki at intel.com>; Ni, Ray
> > <ray.ni at intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe:
> > Improve Error handling of Ufs Pass Thru driver
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: devel at edk2.groups.io <devel at edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Wu,
> > Hao
> > > A
> > > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 4:38 PM
> > > To: Bandaru, Purna Chandra Rao
> > > <purna.chandra.rao.bandaru at intel.com>;
> > > devel at edk2.groups.io
> > > Cc: Albecki, Mateusz <mateusz.albecki at intel.com>; Ni, Ray
> > > <ray.ni at intel.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe:
> > > Improve Error handling of Ufs Pass Thru driver
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Bandaru, Purna Chandra Rao
> > > <purna.chandra.rao.bandaru at intel.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 5:02 PM
> > > > To: devel at edk2.groups.io
> > > > Cc: Bandaru, Purna Chandra Rao
> > > > <purna.chandra.rao.bandaru at intel.com>;
> > > > Albecki, Mateusz <mateusz.albecki at intel.com>; Ni, Ray
> > > > <ray.ni at intel.com>; Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu at intel.com>
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UfsPassThruDxe: Improve Error
> > handling
> > > > of Ufs Pass Thru driver
> > > >
> > > > From: Bandaru <purna.chandra.rao.bandaru at intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3217
> > > >
> > > > Following is the brief description of the changes
> > > > 1) There are cards that can take upto 600ms for Init and hence increase
> > > > the time out for fDeviceInit polling loop.
> > > > 2) Add UFS host conctroller reset in the last retry of Link start up.
> > > > 3) Retry sending NOP OUT command upto 10 times
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Bandaru,
> > >
> > > Could you help to break this patch into a 3-patch series in V2?
> > > With each patch handling just one of the above 3 improvements
> > mentioned.
> > >
> > > For improvement 2) above, I do not see such UFS host controller
> > > re-enabling process being mentioned in UFSHCI 3.0 spec section 7.1.1.
> > > Is this process being documented somewhere else in the spec or
> > > suggested by device vender?
> >
> >
> > Sorry for missing one comment.
> > Could you help to add the information on what kind of tests have been
> > performed for the code changes?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Hao Wu
> >
> >
> > >
> > > More inline comments below:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bandaru <purna.chandra.rao.bandaru at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Mateusz Albecki <mateusz.albecki at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu at intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Change-Id: I6c0dbc1c147487e51f0ed5f2425957ae089b0160
> > > > ---
> > > > MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThru.c | 26
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThruHci.c | 18
> > > > ++++++++++++------
> > > > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThru.c
> > > > b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThru.c
> > > > index 9768c2e6fb..89048745be 100644
> > > > --- a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThru.c
> > > > +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThru.c
> > > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> > > > /** @file
> > > >
> > > > - Copyright (c) 2014 - 2019, Intel Corporation. All rights
> > > > reserved.<BR>
> > > > + Copyright (c) 2014 - 2021, Intel Corporation. All rights
> > > > + reserved.<BR>
> > > > Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation.<BR>
> > > > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent
> > > >
> > > > @@ -749,7 +749,7 @@ UfsFinishDeviceInitialization ( {
> > > > EFI_STATUS Status;
> > > > UINT8 DeviceInitStatus;
> > > > - UINT8 Timeout;
> > > > + UINT16 Timeout;
> > > >
> > > > DeviceInitStatus = 0xFF;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -761,17 +761,23 @@ UfsFinishDeviceInitialization (
> > > > return Status;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - Timeout = 5;
> > > > + Timeout = 6000; //There are cards that can take upto 600ms.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please help to add a macro in file UfsPassThru.h:
> > > #define UFS_INIT_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT 6000 And use the macro here.
> > >
> > > Also a minor comment, could you help to use the below comment format?
> > > //
> > > // There are UFS devices that can take up to 600ms to clear the
> > > fDeviceInit flag // Timeout = UFS_INIT_COMPLETION_TIMEOUT;
> > >
> > >
> > > > do {
> > > > + MicroSecondDelay (100); //Give 100 us and then start polling.
> > >
> > >
> > > For the above delay movement, do you observe any side effect for the
> > > origin code?
> > > If not, I prefer to leave the origin behavior:
> > > do {
> > > UfsReadFlag();
> > > ...
> > > MicroSecondDelay (1);
> > > } while (...)
> > > since doing so will have the least performance penalty for devices
> > > that respond fast.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Status = UfsReadFlag (Private, UfsFlagDevInit, &DeviceInitStatus);
> > > > if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > return Status;
> > > > }
> > > > - MicroSecondDelay (1);
> > > > Timeout--;
> > > > } while (DeviceInitStatus != 0 && Timeout != 0);
> > > >
> > > > + if (Timeout == 0) {
> > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "UfsFinishDeviceInitialization
> > > > DeviceInitStatus=%x EFI_TIMEOUT \n", DeviceInitStatus));
> > > > + return EFI_TIMEOUT;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "UfsFinishDeviceInitialization Timeout
> > > > + left=%x EFI_SUCCESS \n", Timeout));
> > > > return EFI_SUCCESS;
> > >
> > >
> > > Please help to add two spaces for text alignment in the above line.
> > >
> > >
> > > > + }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > @@ -905,9 +911,19 @@ UfsPassThruDriverBindingStart (
> > > > // At the end of the UFS Interconnect Layer initialization on
> > > > both host and device side,
> > > > // the host shall send a NOP OUT UPIU to verify that the device
> > > > UTP Layer is ready.
> > > > //
> > >
> > >
> > > For the NOP OUT - NOP IN improvement, could you help to provide more
> > > information on what is the current issue for some devices?
> > > Is it a timeout happened for:
> > > Status = UfsWaitMemSet (Private, UFS_HC_UTRLDBR_OFFSET, BIT0 <<
> > > Slot, 0, UFS_TIMEOUT); (If so, have you tried increasing the last
> > > parameter like
> > > '10*UFS_TIMEOUT'?) Or the case is that NopInUpiu->Resp has a
> > > non-zero value?
> > >
> > > I found that in the UFS 3.0 spec:
> > > |> For some implementations, the device UTP layer may not be
> > > |> initialized yet, therefore the device may not respond promptly to
> > > |> NOP OUT UPIU sending NOP IN UPIU.
> > > |> The host waits until it receives the NOP IN UPIU from the device...
> > > And there is no mention for the retry scheme.
> > >
> > >
> > > > + for (Index = 10; Index > 0; Index--) {
> > > > Status = UfsExecNopCmds (Private);
> > > > if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > - DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Ufs Sending NOP IN command Error,
> Status
> > > > = %r\n", Status));
> > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Ufs Sending NOP IN command Error,
> > Index
> > > > = %x Status = %r\n", Index, Status));
> > > > + MicroSecondDelay (100); //100 us
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "Ufs Sent NOP OUT successfully and
> > > > + received
> > > > NOP IN, Status = %r\n", Status));
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > + if (!Index) {
> > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "NOP OUT failed all the 10 times Status =
> > > > + %r\n", Status));
> > > > goto Error;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThruHci.c
> > > > b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThruHci.c
> > > > index 0b1030ab47..4fa5689196 100644
> > > > --- a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThruHci.c
> > > > +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Ufs/UfsPassThruDxe/UfsPassThruHci.c
> > > > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> > > > UfsPassThruDxe driver is used to produce EFI_EXT_SCSI_PASS_THRU
> > > > protocol interface
> > > > for upper layer application to execute UFS-supported SCSI cmds.
> > > >
> > > > - Copyright (c) 2014 - 2019, Intel Corporation. All rights
> > > > reserved.<BR>
> > > > + Copyright (c) 2014 - 2021, Intel Corporation. All rights
> > > > + reserved.<BR>
> > > > Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation.<BR>
> > > > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1929,17 +1929,15 @@ UfsDeviceDetection (
> > > >
> > > > //
> > > > // Start UFS device detection.
> > > > - // Try up to 3 times for establishing data link with device.
> > > > + // Try up to 4 times for establishing data link with device.
> > > > //
> > > > - for (Retry = 0; Retry < 3; Retry++) {
> > > > + for (Retry = 0; Retry < 4; Retry++) {
> > >
> > >
> > > Please introduce a macro in file UfsPassThru.h:
> > > #define UFS_LINK_STARTUP_RETRIES 4
> > > And use the macro here.
> > >
> > > Also, is it necessary to increase the retry number by 1?
> > > Or the device can be successfully brought up by adding a host
> > > controller re- enabling?
> > >
> > >
> > > > LinkStartupCommand.Opcode = UfsUicDmeLinkStartup;
> > > > LinkStartupCommand.Arg1 = 0;
> > > > LinkStartupCommand.Arg2 = 0;
> > > > LinkStartupCommand.Arg3 = 0;
> > > > Status = UfsExecUicCommands (Private, &LinkStartupCommand);
> > > > - if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > - return EFI_DEVICE_ERROR;
> > > > - }
> > >
> > >
> > > Will the DME_LINKSTARTUP command execution fail at first and then
> > > succeed after retry?
> > > If not, I prefer to keep the origin code logic to return error status directly.
> > >
> > >
> > > > + if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > >
> > > > Status = UfsMmioRead32 (Private, UFS_HC_STATUS_OFFSET, &Data);
> > > > if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > @@ -1960,6 +1958,14 @@ UfsDeviceDetection (
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > return EFI_SUCCESS;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > + if (Retry == 2) {
> > >
> > >
> > > Please help to update to:
> > > if (Retry == UFS_LINK_STARTUP_RETRIES - 1) {
> > >
> > > And add comments like:
> > > //
> > > // Try re-enabling the UFS host controller in the last retry attempt
> > > //
> > >
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Hao Wu
> > >
> > >
> > > > + Status = UfsEnableHostController (Private);
> > > > + if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "UfsDeviceDetection: Enable Host
> > > Controller
> > > > Fails, Status = %r\n", Status));
> > > > + return Status;
> > > > + }
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.16.2.windows.1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#72125): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/72125
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/80560328/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
More information about the edk2-devel-archive
mailing list