linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] iio: adc: Add events support to ad4052

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]

Message-ID: <fa403d19-13c5-4845-9364-58eea1b62e61@baylibre.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 11:03:24 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Jorge Marques <gastmaier@...il.com>
Cc: Jorge Marques <jorge.marques@...log.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Uwe Kleine-König
 <ukleinek@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] iio: adc: Add events support to ad4052

On 6/13/25 5:02 AM, Jorge Marques wrote:
> Hi David,
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 02:38:45PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
>> On 6/10/25 2:34 AM, Jorge Marques wrote:
>>> The AD4052 family supports autonomous monitoring readings for threshold
>>> crossings. Add support for catching the GPIO interrupt and expose as an IIO
>>> event. The device allows to set either, rising and falling directions. Only
>>> either threshold crossing is implemented.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jorge Marques <jorge.marques@...log.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> +
>>> +static ssize_t ad4052_events_frequency_store(struct device *dev,
>>> +					     struct device_attribute *attr,
>>> +					     const char *buf,
>>> +					     size_t len)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct iio_dev *indio_dev = dev_to_iio_dev(dev);
>>> +	struct ad4052_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	if (!iio_device_claim_direct(indio_dev))
>>> +		return -EBUSY;
>>> +	if (st->wait_event) {
>>> +		ret = -EBUSY;
>>> +		goto out_release;
>>> +	}
>>
>> I'm wondering if we should instead have some kind of iio_device_claim_monitor_mode()
>> so that we don't have to implement this manually everywhere. If monitor mode was
>> claimed, then iio_device_claim_direct() and iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() would
>> both return -EBUSY. If buffer mode was claimed, iio_device_claim_monitor_mode()
>> would fail. If direct mode was claimed, iio_device_claim_monitor_mode() would wait.
>>
> I don't think this would scale with other vendors and devices, it is a

Why not? I've seen lots of devices that have some sort of monitor mode
where they are internally continuously comparing measurements to something
and only signal an interrupt when some condition is met.

> limitation of ADI:ADC:SPI requiring to enter configuration mode to read

I don't see how it could be a limitiation exclusive to this combination of
vendor, sensor type and bus type.

> registers. A deep dive into the other drivers that use IIO Events is
> needed.
>>> +

...

>>> +
>>> +static int ad4052_monitor_mode_disable(struct ad4052_state *st)
>>> +{
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&st->spi->dev);
>>> +	pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&st->spi->dev);
>>> +
>>> +	ret = ad4052_exit_command(st);
>>> +	if (ret)
>>> +		return ret;
>>> +	return regmap_write(st->regmap, AD4052_REG_DEVICE_STATUS,
>>> +			    AD4052_REG_DEVICE_STATUS_MAX_FLAG |
>>> +			    AD4052_REG_DEVICE_STATUS_MIN_FLAG);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> It seems like we need to make sure monitor mode is disabled when the
>> driver is removed. Otherwise we could end up with unbalanced calls to
>> the pm_runtime stuff and leave the chip running.
>>
>>
> When monitor mode is enabled, pm is already disabled (won't enter low
> power). I expect the pm to handle the clean-up properly since devm is
> used.
> The .remove() I suggest is reg access to:
> 
> * Put in configuration mode, if not.
> * Put on low power mode, if not.
> 
I was just thinking something like:

	if (st->wait_event)
		ad4052_monitor_mode_disable(st);

Also might need to use devm_add_action_or_reset() instead of .remove
to get correct ordering.