Unable to disable FIFO_IRQ_PROC0

[alexandruradovici]

I am trying to port Tock to the Raspberry Pi Pico and I am facing a strange issue regarding the FIFO interrupt.

As Tock is using only one core, I do not need the FIFO. My understanding is that the second core is stopped by the bootloader. The problems that I am facing are the following:

1. the FIFO_IRQ_PROC) (15) interrupt keeps firing continuously, I tried disabling it from the NVIC, but it seems to ignore it
2. when trying to to write to the NVIC::ISER register the value 1<<15 it hard faults, any other value works

I am using openocd via a Raspberry Pi to load and debug the software. I used the same init steps as in the SDK.

I think I might be missing something, but I can't figure out what. Any advice would be great.

[lurch]

I've not tried this myself, but from a quick look at the datasheet it seems you need to write to NVIC ICER to disable the interrupt? (ISER is the enable register; although I dunno why re-enabling an interrupt should cause a hard fault?)

EDIT: And section 2.3.1.4. of the datasheet says you can read FIFO_ST to see the reason the interrupt was fired.

[alexandruradovici]

I've not tried this myself, but from a quick look at the datasheet it seems you need to write to NVIC ICER to disable the interrupt? (ISER is the enable register; although I dunno why re-enabling an interrupt should cause a hard fault?)

I did try disabling it by writing the ICER register. I cleared the pending register, wrote 1 << 15 to ICER and then read the pending register again. It was still signaling the interrupt.

EDIT: And section 2.3.1.4. of the datasheet says you can read FIFO_ST to see the reason the interrupt was fired.

I did this, the register returns 0b11, meaging that the RDY and VLD are set. Reading the FIFO_RD register still does not clear the interrupt. I tried reding it 100 times, once every time the interrupt fired, and always got 0.

[lurch]

I did try disabling it by writing the ICER register.

Sorry, from your original message it sounded like you were trying to disable the interrupt by writing to NVIC::ISER, apologies if I misunderstood.

Well I'm afraid that's as far as my knowledge goes, so you'll have to wait for @kilograham or @Wren6991 to provide further assistance 🙂

[kilograham]

You need to clear the status register by writing say 0xF to the register; this will clear the IRQ.

I am suprised that emptying the FIFO does not clear the IRQ - will have to dig deeper on that, although it may be for consistency with other peripherals which all clear IRQs explicitly.

Note, that yes, core 1 (edited) startup does write a 0 to the FIFO, so there will always be an IRQ pending on core 0. It seems like you are turning on the interrupt without actually means to use it which seems odd, but there you go.

[lurch]

From what I understand from the datasheet, shouldn't core0 writing to the FIFO trigger core1's IRQ, i.e. 16?

EDIT:

You need to clear the status register by writing say 0xF to the register; this will clear the IRQ.

The datasheet claims that the FIFO_ST RDY and VLD fields are ReadOnly? (I'm not implying that @kilograham is wrong, it might be the datasheet that is wrong, or it might just be @alexandruradovici 's code that is wrong 🤷‍♂️ )

[kilograham]

yes i meant core 1 sorry ... edited

[alexandruradovici]

You need to clear the status register by writing say 0xF to the register; this will clear the IRQ.

I tried this now, the interrupt still fires.

I am suprised that emptying the FIFO does not clear the IRQ - will have to dig deeper on that, although it may be for consistency with other peripherals which all clear IRQs explicitly.

Note, that yes, core 1 (edited) startup does write a 0 to the FIFO, so there will always be an IRQ pending on core 0. It seems like you are turning on the interrupt without actually means to use it which seems odd, but there you go.

I don't think I turned on the interrupt. How would I do that? How can I disable it (other then from NVIC). I still don't understand why it faults when I try to write 1<<15 to ISER to unmask it.

[lurch]

@kilograham There seems to be slight mismatch between what pico-examples / pico-sdk are doing, and what the RP2040 datasheet says? Or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding things? (the latter is probably the most likely scenario!)

The IRQ-handlers in https://github.com/raspberrypi/pico-examples/blob/master/multicore/multicore_fifo_irqs/multicore_fifo_irqs.c#L24 use multicore_fifo_clear_irq() and the comment at https://github.com/raspberrypi/pico-sdk/blob/master/src/rp2_common/pico_multicore/include/pico/multicore.h#L134 says // Write any value to clear any interrupts, i.e. the multicore_fifo_irqs example seems to be assuming that multicore_fifo_clear_irq() clears the VLD flag?
However section 2.3.1.4. in the datasheet says "The ROE and WOF flags are cleared by writing any value to FIFO_ST, and the VLD flag is cleared by reading data from the FIFO until empty." and the register-description for FIFO_ST additionally shows that the VLD field is read-only?

So (to me) it seems like what multicore_fifo_clear_irq() is actually doing is just clearing the error flags? (which of course will clear the interrupt, if the interrupt was caused by an underflow / overflow error).

P.S. The doxygen comment for multicore_fifo_drain says "Flush any data in the outgoing FIFO" however should it say "incoming FIFO" (as it seems to be draining fifo_rd)?

@alexandruradovici

I don't think I turned on the interrupt. How would I do that?

I suspect that by "turn on" Graham meant the same thing you're referring to as "unmask"? Also, perhaps it's worth playing with https://github.com/raspberrypi/pico-examples/tree/master/multicore/multicore_fifo_irqs to see if that helps you see where your own code is going wrong?

[alexandruradovici]

Now its getting even stranger. Now I start getting also IRQ 16. Shouldn't this fire only for the second core? Now only RDY is set, so based on the datasheet the interrupt should not fire, no?

I am still not able to disable the interrupts (15 and 16).

[alexandruradovici]

I did some further testing and it seems that actually while the interrupt is in fact disable, I am not able to clear the pending bit. I am running the following lines in the main function:

/**
 * Copyright (c) 2020 Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd.
 *
 * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
 */

#include "pico/stdlib.h"
#include "pico/multicore.h"
#include "hardware/irq.h"

const uint LED_PIN = 25;

#pragma GCC push_options
#pragma GCC optimize ("O0")
static void led (void) {
    gpio_put (LED_PIN, 1);
}

static void led2 (void) {
    panic ("led 2");
}

#pragma GCC push_options
#pragma GCC optimize ("O0")
int main() {
    
    gpio_init(LED_PIN);
    gpio_set_dir(LED_PIN, GPIO_OUT);
    volatile unsigned int *icpr = (unsigned int*)(0xe000e280);
    volatile unsigned int icpr_value = *icpr;
    *icpr = (unsigned int)(1 <<15);
    icpr_value = *(unsigned int*)(0xe000e280);
    led ();
    panic ("");
    // irq_set_exclusive_handler(SIO_IRQ_PROC0, led);
    // irq_set_exclusive_handler(SIO_IRQ_PROC1, led2);
    // irq_set_enabled (SIO_IRQ_PROC0, true);
    // irq_set_enabled (SIO_IRQ_PROC1, true);
    while (true) {
        // gpio_put(LED_PIN, 1);
        // sleep_ms(250);
        // gpio_put(LED_PIN, 0);
        // sleep_ms(250);
    }
}

After executing this, gdb shows the disassembly:

   0x1000037a <+10>:    bl      0x100003dc <gpio_init>
   0x1000037e <+14>:    movs    r3, #25
   0x10000380 <+16>:    movs    r1, #1
   0x10000382 <+18>:    movs    r0, r3
   0x10000384 <+20>:    bl      0x100003c8 <gpio_set_dir>
   0x10000388 <+24>:    ldr     r3, [pc, #32]   ; (0x100003ac <main+60>)
   0x1000038a <+26>:    str     r3, [r7, #4]
   0x1000038c <+28>:    ldr     r3, [r7, #4]
   0x1000038e <+30>:    ldr     r3, [r3, #0]
   0x10000390 <+32>:    str     r3, [r7, #0]
   0x10000392 <+34>:    ldr     r3, [r7, #4]
   0x10000394 <+36>:    movs    r2, #128        ; 0x80
--Type <RET> for more, q to quit, c to continue without paging--
   0x10000396 <+38>:    lsls    r2, r2, #8
=> 0x10000398 <+40>:    str     r2, [r3, #0]
   0x1000039a <+42>:    ldr     r3, [pc, #16]   ; (0x100003ac <main+60>)
   0x1000039c <+44>:    ldr     r3, [r3, #0]
   0x1000039e <+46>:    str     r3, [r7, #0]
   0x100003a0 <+48>:    bl      0x1000035c <led>
   0x100003a4 <+52>:    ldr     r3, [pc, #8]    ; (0x100003b0 <main+64>)
   0x100003a6 <+54>:    movs    r0, r3
   0x100003a8 <+56>:    bl      0x10000464 <panic>
   0x100003ac <+60>:    b.n     0x100008b0 <stdio_put_string+12>
   0x100003ae <+62>:    b.n     0x100003b2 <main+66>
   0x100003b0 <+64>:    lsrs    r0, r6, #10
   0x100003b2 <+66>:    asrs    r0, r0, #32
End of assembler dump.
(gdb) 
(gdb) p/t $r2
$12 = 1000000000000000
(gdb) p/x $r3
$13 = 0xe000e280
(gdb) si
0x1000039a in main ()
(gdb) si
0x1000039c in main ()
(gdb) p/x $r3
$14 = 0xe000e280
(gdb) si
0x1000039e in main ()
(gdb) p/x $r3
$15 = 0x18040
(gdb) p/t $r3
$16 = 11000000001000000

If my code is correct, this should be the value of the icpr register. It does not seem to clear the pending bit.

Is it possible that I am overlooking something?

EDIT: clearing IRQ 6 works (writing 1 << 6)

[lurch]

Now I start getting also IRQ 16. Shouldn't this fire only for the second core?

All interrupts get routed to both cores. As it notes in the RP2040 datasheet: "Typically Core 0 will use IRQ15 and core 1 will use IRQ16. If the IRQs are used the other way round then it is difficult for the core that has been interrupted to correctly identify the reason for the interrupt as the core doesn’t have access to the other core’s FIFO status register."

Also, you could probably get rid of some of those "ugly" hardcoded values in your code by using constants from "hardware/regs/m0plus.h" https://github.com/raspberrypi/pico-sdk/blob/develop/src/rp2040/hardware_regs/include/hardware/regs/m0plus.h

But I can't comment further on your code as I'm starting to get out of my depth 😉 (Is it possible that the pending bit is still active because the interrupt has re-fired?. I'm probably not understanding what you're trying to do, but why do you care about the pending bits 15 and 16 being set if those interrupts are masked, which (I think) means that they'll not actually trigger an interrupt-handler?)

@kilograham On a sidenote I see that there's no hardware_structs middle-layer between the low-level hardware_regs and the higher-level hardware_irq lib. For consistency with the rest of pico-sdk, should there be? 🤷‍♂️

[alexandruradovici]

Now I start getting also IRQ 16. Shouldn't this fire only for the second core?

All interrupts get routed to both cores. As it notes in the RP2040 datasheet: "Typically Core 0 will use IRQ15 and core 1 will use IRQ16. If the IRQs are used the other way round then it is difficult for the core that has been interrupted to correctly identify the reason for the interrupt as the core doesn’t have access to the other core’s FIFO status register."

I figured that this might be the problem.

Also, you could probably get rid of some of those "ugly" hardcoded values in your code by using constants from "hardware/regs/m0plus.h" https://github.com/raspberrypi/pico-sdk/blob/develop/src/rp2040/hardware_regs/include/hardware/regs/m0plus.h

Tock, the OS that I am trying to port, is written in Rust, meaning I cannot use the SDK header files. The C example is just for testing purposes, I wanted to make sure that my code is not doing something wrong, so I tested using the SDK.

But I can't comment further on your code as I'm starting to get out of my depth wink (Is it possible that the pending bit is still active because the interrupt has re-fired?. I'm probably not understanding what you're trying to do, but why do you care about the pending bits 15 and 16 being set if those interrupts are masked, which (I think) means that they'll not actually trigger an interrupt-handler?)

Tock uses bottom-half handlers for interrupts, meaning that interrupts fire, they are flagged as pending in the interrupt handler and will be actually handled a little later in the kernel context. After the interrupt handler returns, the kernel checks the pending interrupts and executes the handlers.

You are correct, the interrupt never fires as it is disabled, but the ICSR register cannot clear the pending status and this makes the kernel execute the handlers continuously.

EDIT: I did some more experimenting and found out the following:

1. IRQ 15 stops pending as long as I read FIFO_RD and write 0xff to FIFO_ST two times
2. IRQ 16 never stops pending, not matter what I do.

My understanding is that for processor 0 I should ignore IRQ 16. Is this right?

@kilograham On a sidenote I see that there's no hardware_structs middle-layer between the low-level hardware_regs and the higher-level hardware_irq lib. For consistency with the rest of pico-sdk, should there be? man_shrugging

[lurch]

You are correct, the interrupt never fires as it is disabled, but the ICSR register cannot clear the pending status and this makes the kernel execute the handlers continuously.

Can't you just ignore pending-interrupts in your interrupt-handler / kernel, when you know those interrupts haven't been enabled?

IRQ 16 never stops pending, not matter what I do.

The way I understand it (which as I've mentioned before, may well be wrong!), is that when you set bit 16 in the ICPR register it does clear the pending interrupt, but because the "actual interrupt" (i.e. the VLD bit in core1's FIFO_ST) is still active, the interrupt immediately re-fires again. If you really wanted to clear IRQ16 I think the only way to do that would be drain core1's FIFO_RD (which you can only do from core1 itself).

[alexandruradovici]

You are correct, the interrupt never fires as it is disabled, but the ICSR register cannot clear the pending status and this makes the kernel execute the handlers continuously.

Can't you just ignore pending-interrupts in your interrupt-handler / kernel, when you know those interrupts haven't been enabled?

This is what I did.

IRQ 16 never stops pending, not matter what I do.

The way I understand it (which as I've mentioned before, may well be wrong!), is that when you set bit 16 in the ICPR register it does clear the pending interrupt, but because the "actual interrupt" (i.e. the VLD bit in core1's FIFO_ST) is still active, the interrupt immediately re-fires again. If you really wanted to clear IRQ16 I think the only way to do that would be drain core1's FIFO_RD (which you can only do from core1 itself).

This makes sense, thank you.

[kilograham]

i think this can be closed, no?

[alexandruradovici]

i think this can be closed, no?

Yes, I think so.