Message-ID: <b01afcee62e82e6965115a8a0ec7246f71488df1.camel@analog.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Dec 2019 13:40:34 +0000
From:   "Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.Ardelean@...log.com>
To:     "Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com" <Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "jic23@...nel.org" <jic23@...nel.org>,
        "Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com" <Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com>,
        "lars@...afoo.de" <lars@...afoo.de>,
        "pmeerw@...erw.net" <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        "alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        "knaack.h@....de" <knaack.h@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix
 iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 12:17 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com wrote:
> 
> On 03.12.2019 14:04, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 09:49 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com wrote:
> > > [External]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 29.11.2019 09:02, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:19 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hey,
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry for the late reply.
> > > > I'm also juggling a few things.
> > > > 
> > > > > On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> > > > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions
> > > > > > > > attach/detach
> > > > > > > > poll functions.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called
> > > > > > > > first to
> > > > > > > > attach
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be
> > > > > > > > triggered.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be
> > > > > > > > called
> > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll
> > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > detached.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi Alexandru,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sorry for this late reply,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
> > > > > > predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing standard
> > > > > > callback
> > > > > > with my own, and have my specific at91 code before postenable
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > calling the subsystem postenable,
> > > > > > and in similar way, for predisable, first call the subsystem
> > > > > > predisable
> > > > > > then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in
> > > > > > postenable)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the
> > > > > > pollfunction
> > > > > > first), how is current code working ?
> > > > > > Should current code fail if the poll function is not attached
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > time ?
> > > > > > Or there is a race between triggered data and the attachment of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > pollfunc ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it work
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the
> > > > > > pollfunc
> > > > > > attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is not
> > > > > > started)
> > > > > > ,
> > > > > > can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc
> > > > > > polling
> > > > > > but no
> > > > > > trigger started/no DMA started.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using
> > > > > postenable
> > > > > first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also
> > > > > enable
> > > > > the
> > > > > trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
> > > > > Is this the desired effect ?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes.
> > > 
> > > How is this correct ? We start the trigger but have no buffer to
> > > carry
> > > to... what happens with the data ? -> I think we both have an answer
> > > to
> > > that, as you state below
> > > 
> > > > > Normally when using DMA I would say we
> > > > > would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and
> > > > > coherent
> > > > > area etc.) and then enable the trigger.
> > > > 
> > > > So, there is a change in our tree [from some time ago].
> > > > See here:
> > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8
> > > > 
> > > > Particularly, what's interesting is around line:
> > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8#diff-0a87744ce945d2c1c89ea19f21fb35bbR722
> > > > And you may need to expand some stuff to see more of the function-
> > > > body.
> > > > And some things may have changed in upstream IIO since that change.
> > > > 
> > > > The change is to make the pollfunc attach/detach become part of the
> > > > IIO
> > > > framework, because plenty of drivers just call
> > > > iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() &
> > > > iio_triggered_buffer_predisable()
> > > > to
> > > > manually attach/detach the pollfunc for triggered buffers.
> > > 
> > > Okay, I understand this. at91-sama5d2_adc does not manually
> > > attach/detach the pollfunc. So why do we need to change anything here
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > That change is from 2015, and since then, some drivers were added
> > > > that
> > > > just
> > > > manually attach/detach the pollfunc [and do nothing more with the
> > > > postenable/predisable hooks].
> > > > 
> > > > I tried to upstream a more complete version of that patch a while
> > > > ago
> > > > [u1].
> > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
> > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/
> > > > 
> > > > The conclusion was to first fix the attach/detach pollfunc order in
> > > > all
> > > > IIO
> > > > drivers, so that when patch [u1] is applied, there is no more
> > > > discussion
> > > > about the correct order for attach/detach pollfunc.
> > > 
> > > Allright, what is required to be fixed regarding the order, in this
> > > specific case? We enable the DMA, and then we do the normal
> > > 'postenable'
> > > that was called anyway if we did not override the 'postenable' in the
> > > ops. Do you want to move this code to 'preenable' and keep
> > > 'postenable'
> > > to the standard subsystem one ?
> > > 
> > > The same applies to the predisable, we first call the subsystem
> > > 'predisable' then do the specific at91 stuff. You want to move this
> > > to
> > > the 'postdisable' ?
> > > 
> > > I think reverting the order inside the functions themselves is not
> > > good
> > > as we replace the order of starting trigger/DMA setup.
> > > So, coming to your question below...
> > > 
> > > > Coming back here [and to your question], my answer is: I don't know
> > > > if
> > > > the
> > > > at91 DMA needs to be enabled/disabled before/after the pollfunc
> > > > attach/detach.
> > > > This sounds like specific stuff for at91 [which is fine].
> > > > 
> > > > It could be that some other hooks may need to used to enable DMA
> > > > before/after the attach/detach pollfunc. Maybe
> > > > preenable()/postdisable() ?
> > > > 
> > > > In any case, what I would like [with this discussion], is to
> > > > resolve a
> > > > situation where we can get closer to moving the attach/pollfunc
> > > > code to
> > > > IIO
> > > > core. So, if AT91 requires a different ordering, I think you would
> > > > be
> > > > more
> > > > appropriate to tell me, and propose an alternative to this patch.
> > > 
> > > ... yes, this looks more appropriate, to move things to
> > > 'preenable/postdisable', if you feel like 'postenable/predisable' is
> > > not
> > > the proper place to put them.
> > > But the order itself, first enable DMA then trigger, and disable in
> > > reverse order, I do not think there is anything wrong with that? Am I
> > > misunderstanding ?
> > 
> > Should be good.
> > 
> > > If Jonathan or Ludovic have a different idea, please let me know.
> > 
> > There is an alternative here [to this].
> > Maybe using the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration that Lars wrote [1].
> > This would avoid calling dmaengine_terminate_sync() and similar hooks
> > in
> > the AT91 driver. That also preserves the correct order (start DMA
> > first,
> > then attach pollfunc ; and reverse on disable).
> > But that is more work; not on the patch itself, but more on the
> > testing.
> 
> Initially, when I implemented the DMA part for this driver, this was the 
> idea. However the DMA engine was not used at that time by anyone , and I 
> could not make it work properly. Jonathan advised at that moment to use 
> this current framework.
> 
> > [1] Upstreaming more parts for the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration
> > is on
> > my to-do-list as well. I think there are still some patches that we
> > use,
> > but are not upstreamed yet.
> > 
> > I'll come-up a with a V2 for this with preenable()/postdisable()
> > alternative here.
> 
> Ok, I will test it .
> 
> What I do not understand completely is why it bothers you to have at91 
> specific code in postenable / predisable.
> The same thing will happen will happen with preenable/postdisable: 
> specific at91 code will be called after subsystem preenable and before 
> subsystem postdisable.

Because I am preparing a framework change to IIO core and all IIO drivers
in mainline need to be resolved when that change happens.
I am not sure if the change will break any driver, but at least we can
minimalize breakage.

> 
> > Thanks
> > Alex
> > 
> > > Also, I can test your patch to see if everything is fine.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Eugen
> > > 
> > > > Thanks :)
> > > > Alex
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also
> > > > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be
> > > > > > > > put
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > places
> > > > > > > > that avoid the code for that cares about it.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ping here
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <
> > > > > > > > alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >      drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++--
> > > > > > > > -------
> > > > > > > >      1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
> > > > > > > > sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
> > > > > > > > iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > >           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > > > >                   return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > +     if (ret)
> > > > > > > > +             return ret;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > >           /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > > >           ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > >           if (ret) {
> > > > > > > >                   dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer
> > > > > > > > postenable
> > > > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > > > +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > >                   return ret;
> > > > > > > >           }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -     return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > +     return 0;
> > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >      static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
> > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > >      {
> > > > > > > >           struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > -     int ret;
> > > > > > > >           u8 bit;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >           /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > touchscreen */
> > > > > > > > @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > >           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > > > >                   return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > > > -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > -     if (ret < 0)
> > > > > > > > -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable
> > > > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > >           if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
> > > > > > > > -             return ret;
> > > > > > > > +             goto out;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >           /* if we are using DMA we must clear registers
> > > > > > > > and end
> > > > > > > > DMA
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > >           dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
> > > > > > > > @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >           /* read overflow register to clear possible
> > > > > > > > overflow
> > > > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > >           at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
> > > > > > > > -     return ret;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +out:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I would prefer if this label is named with a function name
> > > > > > prefix,
> > > > > > otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with other
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if code
> > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Sure.
> > > > Will do that.
> > > > 
> > > > I did not bother much with these labels, because after applying
> > > > [u1],
> > > > some
> > > > of them [maybe all] should go away.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks for the patch,
> > > > > > Eugen
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > +     return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >      static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops
> > > > > > > > at91_buffer_setup_ops =
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> > > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists