[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eb64ec08-2ae3-48bb-9f84-3cec362280b2@enneenne.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:24:36 +0200
From: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
To: Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, herve.codina@...tlin.com,
christophercordahi@...ometrics.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] pps: clients: gpio: Bypass edge's direction check
when not needed
On 10/04/24 16:46, Bastien Curutchet wrote:
> Hi Rodolfo,
>
> On 4/10/24 16:23, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
>> On 10/04/24 13:35, Bastien Curutchet wrote:
>>> In the IRQ handler, the GPIO's state is read to verify the direction of
>>> the edge that triggered the interruption before generating the PPS event.
>>> If a pulse is too short, the GPIO line can reach back its original state
>>> before this verification and the PPS event is lost.
>>>
>>> This check is needed when info->capture_clear is set because it needs
>>> interruptions on both rising and falling edges. When info->capture_clear
>>> is not set, interruption is triggered by one edge only so this check can
>>> be omitted.
>>>
>>> Bypass the edge's direction verification when info->capture_clear is not
>>> set.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c | 9 +++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c b/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c
>>> index 2f4b11b4dfcd..c2a96e3e3836 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c
>>> @@ -52,6 +52,15 @@ static irqreturn_t pps_gpio_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
>>> info = data;
>>> + if (!info->capture_clear) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * If capture_clear is unset, IRQ is triggered by one edge only.
>>> + * So the check on edge direction is not needed here
>>> + */
>>> + pps_event(info->pps, &ts, PPS_CAPTUREASSERT, data);
>>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> rising_edge = gpiod_get_value(info->gpio_pin);
>>> if ((rising_edge && !info->assert_falling_edge) ||
>>> (!rising_edge && info->assert_falling_edge))
>>
>> Apart the code duplication, which are the real benefits of doing so?
>>
>
> It prevents from losing a PPS event when the pulse is so short (or the
> kernel so busy) that the trailing edge of the pulse occurs before the
> interrupt handler can read the state of the GPIO pin.
Have you a real case when this happens?
In any cases we should avoid code duplication... so I think we should do
something as below:
diff --git a/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c b/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c
index 2f4b11b4dfcd..f05fb15ed7f4 100644
--- a/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/pps/clients/pps-gpio.c
@@ -52,7 +52,9 @@ static irqreturn_t pps_gpio_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
info = data;
- rising_edge = gpiod_get_value(info->gpio_pin);
+ rising_edge = info->capture_clear ? \
+ gpiod_get_value(info->gpio_pin) : \
+ !info->assert_falling_edge;
if ((rising_edge && !info->assert_falling_edge) ||
(!rising_edge && info->assert_falling_edge))
pps_event(info->pps, &ts, PPS_CAPTUREASSERT, data);
Please, review and test it before resubmitting. :)
Ciao,
Rodolfo
--
GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: giometti@...eenne.com
Linux Device Driver giometti@...ux.it
Embedded Systems phone: +39 349 2432127
UNIX programming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists