linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] iio: adc: tsc2046: add .read

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 14:18:48 +0100
From:   Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...23.retrosnub.co.uk>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>,
        Robin van der Gracht <robin@...tonic.nl>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] iio: adc: tsc2046: add .read_raw support

Hi Jonathan,

On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 04:00:09PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri,  7 Jan 2022 10:35:27 +0100
> Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > Add read_raw() support to make use of iio_hwmon and other iio clients.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
> Hi Oleksij
> 
> Main questions in here are around settling time and the interface used for that.
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/iio/adc/ti-tsc2046.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 106 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > @@ -252,16 +266,47 @@ static u16 tsc2046_adc_get_value(struct tsc2046_adc_atom *buf)
> >  static int tsc2046_adc_read_one(struct tsc2046_adc_priv *priv, int ch_idx,
> >  				u32 *effective_speed_hz)
> >  {
> > +	struct tsc2046_adc_ch_cfg *ch = &priv->ch_cfg[ch_idx];
> > +	struct tsc2046_adc_atom *rx_buf, *tx_buf;
> > +	unsigned int val, val_normalized = 0;
> > +	int ret, i, count_skip = 0, max_count;
> >  	struct spi_transfer xfer;
> >  	struct spi_message msg;
> > -	int ret;
> > +	u8 cmd;
> > +
> > +	if (!effective_speed_hz) {
> > +		count_skip = tsc2046_adc_time_to_count(priv, ch->settling_time_us);
> > +		max_count = count_skip + ch->oversampling_ratio;
> > +	} else {
> > +		max_count = 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	tx_buf = kcalloc(max_count, sizeof(*tx_buf), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!tx_buf)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	rx_buf = kcalloc(max_count, sizeof(*rx_buf), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!rx_buf) {
> > +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +		goto free_tx;
> > +	}
> 
> I guess these are fine to do everytime because you expect this to be used in
> paths which aren't called at a particularly high frequency?

Yes, this was my assumption as well. Instead of preallocating buffer of
max size, I hope it is less ugly.

> These buffers could get rather large so maybe you need a cap on settling time?

What do you mean by "cap on settling"?

> 
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Do not enable automatic power down on working samples. Otherwise the
> > +	 * plates will never be completely charged.
> > +	 */
> > +	cmd = tsc2046_adc_get_cmd(priv, ch_idx, true);
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < max_count - 1; i++)
> > +		tx_buf[i].cmd = cmd;
> > +
> > +	/* automatically power down on last sample */
> > +	tx_buf[i].cmd = tsc2046_adc_get_cmd(priv, ch_idx, false);
> >  
> >  	memset(&xfer, 0, sizeof(xfer));
> > -	priv->tx_one->cmd = tsc2046_adc_get_cmd(priv, ch_idx, false);
> > -	priv->tx_one->data = 0;
> > -	xfer.tx_buf = priv->tx_one;
> > -	xfer.rx_buf = priv->rx_one;
> 
> Are these used for anything else?  If not probably need to drop them and
> their allocation.

done

> > -	xfer.len = sizeof(*priv->tx_one);
> > +	xfer.tx_buf = tx_buf;
> > +	xfer.rx_buf = rx_buf;
> > +	xfer.len = sizeof(*tx_buf) * max_count;
> 
> This could be very big and more than possible some spi controllers will fail
> it (or does the SPI core handle splitting very large transfers?)  Maybe a loop
> is needed with smaller fixed size transfers?

I can't exclude possible issue with some of SPI drivers. But SPI level
optimizations should be done on SPI driver or framework level.

> >  	spi_message_init_with_transfers(&msg, &xfer, 1);
> >  
> >  	/*
> > @@ -272,13 +317,25 @@ static int tsc2046_adc_read_one(struct tsc2046_adc_priv *priv, int ch_idx,
> >  	if (ret) {
> >  		dev_err_ratelimited(&priv->spi->dev, "SPI transfer failed %pe\n",
> >  				    ERR_PTR(ret));
> > +		*val2 = chan->scan_type.realbits;
> > +		return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2;
> > +	case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OVERSAMPLING_RATIO:
> > +		*val = priv->ch_cfg[chan->channel].oversampling_ratio;
> > +		return IIO_VAL_INT;
> > +	case IIO_CHAN_INFO_DEBOUNCE_COUNT:
> 
> These are unusual. I think they've only been used for the more literal bounce suppression
> of a human step counting algorithm.
> 
> I'd probably not expect to see the both even if we decide this is applicable.

Ok, i do not need this information so far. I'll remove it

> > +		*val = tsc2046_adc_time_to_count(priv,
> > +				priv->ch_cfg[chan->channel].settling_time_us);
> 
> Setting time is often about external circuitry so it's a bit unusual to expose
> it to userspace rather than making it a device tree property and just making
> sure the driver doesn't provide a reading until appropriate debounce has passed.
> Here is coming from DT anyway, so what benefit do these two read only channel
> properties provide?

No benefit. Will remove it.

Regards,
Oleksij
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |