[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cf61eeea-f0a4-5a0c-e5b1-350aec64d073@enneenne.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 12:43:58 +0200
From: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
To: Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>,
"discussions@...uxpps.org" <discussions@...uxpps.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Koen Vandeputte <koen.vandeputte@...ntric.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pps-gpio: use IRQ edge config when not capturing both
edges
On 08/09/2017 21:53, Tim Harvey wrote:
> PPS signals with very short pulse-widths can be missed if their state
> changes by the time the interrupt handler reads the GPIO pin state.
>
> To avoid this in the case where we are only looking for one edge we can
> use the edge configuration for the pin state but fall back to reading the
> pin if both edges are being watched.
I disagree. The "rising_edge" status should be get from the hardware and not
derived by an empirical computation. Or, at least, it should be specifically
activated by setting something like this:
pps {
pinctrl-names = "default";
pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_pps>;
gpios = <&gpio1 26 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
Yes-I-want-get-signal-status-in-an-epirical-way;
compatible = "pps-gpio";
status = "okay";
};
This setting should also print a warning in order to be clear for the user that
he/she should know what he/she is doing.
Then the code should check also the compatibility with property
"assert-falling-edge"...
Ciao,
Rodolfo
--
HCE Engineering e-mail: giometti@...-engineering.it
GNU/Linux Solutions giometti@...eenne.com
Linux Device Driver giometti@...ux.it
Embedded Systems phone: +39 349 2432127
UNIX programming skype: rodolfo.giometti
Cosino Project - the quick prototyping embedded system - www.cosino.it
Freelance ICT Italia - Consulente ICT Italia - www.consulenti-ict.it
Powered by blists - more mailing lists