Message-ID: <b2685b44-35c2-b8c1-6479-8dd3b56974d9@st.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:05:17 +0100
From:   Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:     Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
        Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...com>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] iio: trigger: add support for STM32 EXTI triggers

On 02/11/2017 11:29 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 06/02/17 16:01, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
>> On 02/04/2017 12:39 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On 03/02/17 19:40, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> EXTi[0..15] gpio signal can be routed internally as trigger source for
>>>>> ADC or DAC conversions. Configure them as interrupts to configure
>>>>> trigger path in HW.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: interrupt handler isn't required here, and corresponding interrupt
>>>>> can be kept masked at exti controller level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com>
>>>>
>>>> But I see nothing STM32-specific about this driver?
>>>>
>>>> I think we should do everone a service and just create
>>>> drivers/iio/trigger/gpio-trigger.c
>>>>
>>>> I wondered before why we don't have a generic GPIO IIO trigger,
>>>> it seems like such an intuitive and useful thing to have.
>>> We do, it just got renamed at some point a while back to be
>>> iio-trig-interrupt after it became clear that it didn't need
>>> to be a gpio either - just an interrupt.  Can't remember which
>>> part provided a non gpio interrupt pin and hence drove that
>>> change.  Was quite a while back!
>>> d4fd73bf25c3aafc891ef4443fc744d427ec1df0 specifically in 2013
>>>
>>> Handling of the gpio stuff should be handled in the interrupt
>>> description itself.
>>>
>>> However, it's a bit different - in that in the below it
>>> would be the equivalent of triggering on the unused exti
>>> interrupt rather than on the end of conversion.
>>>
>>> In this case, because of the hardware linkage we can effectively
>>> skip the first interrupt.
>>>
>>> Arguably to make this a general purpose trigger we should enable
>>> that interrupt if anything other than the STM devices that can
>>> use it in hardware are hooked on to it.
>>>
>>> So this is an interrupt trigger without the interrupt ever
>>> being visible to software.
>>>
>>> It might be easy enough to add that support to the generic version
>>> except that linking said trigger requires some register changes
>>> in the STM side. + there is a kicker in the various last bit
>>> of this patch - we need a way to find out if it's the interrupt
>>> we think it is (i.e. an exti interrupt)
>>
>> Hi Jonathan, Linus, all,
>>
>> First, many thanks for reviewing.
>>
>> In this patch-set, I choose to implement this hardware trigger line
>> into separate driver... Thinking out loud:
>> If I try to summarize, as you perfectly describe here before, I see
>> two items to address: - this is pure HW line, that can either
>> generate interrupts, and/or start conversions in HW. This may be hard
>> to combine both, an interrupt handler to call iio_trigger_poll() from
>> there, for generic devices, but not for stm devices (not sure if this
>> can benefit to others?).
> Wouldn't have thought it was that hard to do, but fair enough  + it
> can definitely be added later if anyone cares.

Hi Jonathan,

I hope I'd give some more trials ;-).

>
>  - there is need to do some register changes
>> on stm device side (ADC) as well, when choosing a particular trigger
>> (EXTI line for instance) e.g. in validate_trigger().
>>
>> I'm starting to wonder if this can be separate driver. Maybe this
>> should be part of device driver (e.g. ADC), at least for the time being.
> Sure, if it ends up easier that way then do so.  We don't really have
>  support yet for triggered DACs anyway and as you say this could be
> modified later - subject to the need to end up with device tree bindings
> that make sense in that case as well.

I've just posted an RFC, to add device tree bindings for trigger.
"iio: trigger: Add OF support and GPIO based trigger"
I think this is a prerequisite, trying to get more generic implementation.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's see what Jonathan says.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +config IIO_STM32_EXTI_TRIGGER
>>>>> +       tristate "STM32 EXTI Trigger"
>>>>> +       depends on (ARCH_STM32 && OF) || COMPILE_TEST
>>>>
>>>> config IIO_GPIO_TRIGGER
>>>>     depends on GPIOLIB
>>>>
>>>>> +       select STM32_EXTI
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the dependency actually the other way around?
>>>>
>>>> default STM32_EXTI makes more sense, or just put it into the
>>>> defconfig.
>>>>
>>>>> +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/iio/iio.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/iio/trigger.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/* STM32 has up to 16 EXTI triggers on GPIOs */
>>>>> +#define STM32_MAX_EXTI_TRIGGER 16
>>>>
>>>> Just don't put any restrictions like this so it can be widely
>>>> reused.
>>>>
>>>>> +static irqreturn_t stm32_exti_trigger_handler(int irq, void *data)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       /* Exti handler shouldn't be invoked, and isn't used */
>>>>> +       return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> It could be a good idea to capture the timestamp here if we were
>>>> actually using this IRQ.
>>>>
>>>>> +static int stm32_exti_trigger_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       int irq, ret;
>>>>> +       char name[8];
>>>>> +       struct gpio_desc *gpio;
>>>>> +       struct iio_trigger *trig;
>>>>> +       unsigned int i;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       for (i = 0; i < STM32_MAX_EXTI_TRIGGER; i++) {
>>>>
>>>> Why not just run this until devm_gpiod_get() returns -ERRNO
>>>> or something?
>>>>
>>>>> +               snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "exti%d", i);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +               gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&pdev->dev, name, GPIOD_IN);
>>>>
>>>> Why would it be optional?
>>>>
>>>> Either it is there in the device tree or we get -EINVAL or something
>>>> if there is no
>>>> such index in the device tree. We can get -EPROBE_DEEER too, and then
>>>> we should exit silently or just print that deferring is happening.
>>>>
>>>>> +               if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(gpio)) {
>>>>> +                       if (IS_ERR(gpio)) {
>>>>> +                               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "gpio %s get error %ld\n",
>>>>> +                                       name, PTR_ERR(gpio));
>>>>> +                               return PTR_ERR(gpio);
>>>>> +                       }
>>>>> +                       dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "No %s gpio\n", name);
>>>>> +                       continue;
>>>>> +               }
>>>>
>>>> Good
>>>>
>>>>> +               irq = gpiod_to_irq(gpio);
>>>>> +               if (irq < 0) {
>>>>> +                       dev_err(&pdev->dev, "gpio %d to irq failed\n", i);
>>>>> +                       return irq;
>>>>> +               }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +               ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq,
>>>>> +                                      stm32_exti_trigger_handler,
>>>>> +                                      0, dev_name(&pdev->dev), pdev);
>>> Hmm. So this is a trick to set the interrupt mapping up inside the device.
>>> The whole thing doesn't really exist.
>>>
>>> Rather feels like there ought to be some generic interface for
>>> 'I want to pretend I want a particular interrupt but not actually get one'.
>>>
>>> But that would only work in this weird case where there is also a real interrupt
>>> associated with it - just one we elect not to use.
>>>>> +               if (ret) {
>>>>> +                       dev_err(&pdev->dev, "request IRQ %d failed\n", irq);
>>>>> +                       return ret;
>>>>> +               }
>>>>
>>>> Here you need some elaborate trigger edge handling.
>>>>
>>>> The flags that you define as "0" here, how do we say that we
>>>> want to handle rising or falling edges, for example?
>>>>
>>>> I think you might want to establish these DT properties for
>>>> GPIO triggers:
>>>>
>>>> gpio-trigger-rising-edge;
>>>> gpio-trigger-falling-edge;
>>>>
>>>> Then:
>>>>
>>>> int irq_flags = 0;
>>>>
>>>> if (of_property_read_bool(np, "gpio-trigger-rising-edge")
>>>>    irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING;
>>>> else if (of_property_read_bool(np, "gpio-trigger-falling-edge")
>>>>    irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING;
>>> Should this not all be part of the interrupt specification rather
>>> than down here in the specific driver?
>>>>
>>>> To pass along to the devm_request_irq() function as flags.
>>>>
>>>> I find it weird that it even works without. Most GPIO interrupts
>>>> should require you to set a trigger type. But I guess it is because
>>>> of the other weirdness you describe below.
>>>>
>>>>> +               /*
>>>>> +                * gpios are configured as interrupts, so exti trigger path is
>>>>> +                * configured in HW, and can now be used as external trigger
>>>>> +                * source by other IPs. But getting interrupts when trigger
>>>>> +                * occurs is unused here, so mask irq on exti controller by
>>>>> +                * default.
>>>>> +                */
>>>>> +               disable_irq(irq);
>>>>
>>>> Aha. That is not generic. But what about just adding:
>>>>
>>>> if (of_property_read_bool(np, "gpio-trigger-numb-irq")
>>>>     disable_irq();
>>>>
>>>> (Plus add the binding for that something like "this makes the
>>>> GPIO mentioned get requested, translated to an IRQ, get the
>>>> IRQ requested, and then immediately just disabled as other
>>>> hardware will actually hande the IRQ line".)
>>>>
>>>> I understand that this is kind of weird: we're making a whole generic
>>>> GPIO trigger driver just to use it with hardware that grabs and disabled
>>>> the irq immediately.
>>>>
>>>> But I think that in the long run it makes for more reusable code.
>>> I'd go a step further.  Whether it is numbed or not will depend on what
>>> is downstream.  We should be providing this interrupt like normal if
>>> we have other devices triggering off it.  In that case it becomes a standard
>>> interrupt trigger.
>>
>> Hmm, in case stm device is using this trigger, iio_trigger_poll()
>> will be called. If I understand your point here, this interrupt
>> should be enabled, when stm device isn't using this trigger (for
>> generic devices).
> Exactly - or when both STM and generic drivers are using it, then it
> would be better to trigger the generic consumer of the trigger at this
> interrupt, not on the EOC interrupt from the ADC.

I just have one doubt about this. If I summarize:
1 - In case "any device" driver uses a gpio trigger, then, only gpio
interrupt shall call trigger_poll.
2 - In case STM32 ADC device uses gpio trigger, only EOC interrupt shall
call trigger_poll.
3 - In case both 1 + 2, "any device" and STM32 ADC use same trigger...
Shouldn't trigger_poll() be called only once ? (e.g. not twice ?)
Then I would rather rely on EOC to call trigger_poll() only once...
Please advise on this.

>
>> May validate_device()/set_trigger_state() be used
>> to enable or disable this interrupt ? Then, what criteria may be used
>> for that purpose ?>
>>>
>>> Polling off the back of the dataready interrupt is fine if there is nothing
>>> earlier available. Here there is so we should really be triggering other
>>> devices off this earlier interrupt.
>>
>> I fear it can add complexity, because it will depend on user choice to
>> select this trigger for an stm32 adc, or another device, or both ?
>> Not sure how to distinguish both from within this trigger driver.
>> In the end, best maybe to implement this closer in stm32 adc/dac
>> driver, and limit trigger usage with .validate_device().
> That is certainly a valid choice.  Not as nice in some ways, but you
> get to decide on what you work on rather than me ;)
>
> I'm not entirely sure how we'd do the magic to identify the trigger
> and deliberately not hook in the pollfunc if it had nothing to do.

I hope exposing the GPIO/EXTI trigger -> ADC HW connection to device
tree can help on this. DT should reflect HW.
Adding some trigger ops, to inform trigger inhibit the trigger_poll()
call (and possibly mask the interrupt as well) may do the job ?

>>
>>>>
>>>>> +static const struct of_device_id stm32_exti_trigger_of_match[] = {
>>>>> +       { .compatible = "st,stm32-exti-trigger" },
>>>>> +       {},
>>>>
>>>> "iio-gpio-trigger"
>>>>
>>>> Should fit anyone, given the above amendments.
>>>>
>>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IIO_STM32_EXTI_TRIGGER)
>>>>> +bool is_stm32_exti_trigger(struct iio_trigger *trig);
>>>>> +#else
>>>>> +static inline bool is_stm32_exti_trigger(struct iio_trigger *trig)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       return false;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>
>>>> This seems unnecessary to broadcast to the entire kernel.
>>> This one section is the only really non generic element that
>>> isn't supported by the existing interrupt trigger.
>>> Mind you that doesn't have device tree bindings yet :(

Please kindly look at RFC I just sent, and let me know your opinion.

>>
>> Yes, then I suppose simple approach is to rework this, and put it
>> inside stm32 adc core driver ?
>> Then, register trigger from there, and read from dt child node.
>> Is something like the following suitable ?
>> adc@...hhh {
>>     compatible = "st,stm32f4-adc-core"
>>     ...
>>     adc1 {
>>         ...
>>     }
>>
>>     trigger {
>>         gpios = <...>;
>>         st,trigger-value = <11>; /* e.g. EXTI nb */
>>         st,trigger-polarity = <1>;
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> Please let me know your opinion.
> That works for me.  Could conceive of more complex situations that
> doesn't describe (driving both the ADC and a DAC for example - if
> that's possible in the hardware).  Can figure out how to do that when it
> matters.

I hope I can give some more tries, try to do as generic as possible.
About your remark on ADC/DAC: Well, I think only possible case is the
above 1, 2 & 3. DAC isn't there yet. But anyway, it doesn't share same
lines as ADC in hw :-).

Best Regards,
Fabrice

>
> Jonathan
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Fabrice
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if we can add some sort of flag in there to identify hardware
>>> blocks for tricks like this. Or at a push provide the interrupt
>>> to both bits of kit so they can compare and see if they are looking
>>> at the same one?
>>>>
>>>> Why? (Maybe I can find explanations in later patches.
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Linus Walleij
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists