linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: "Matti Lehtimäki" <matti.lehtimaki@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
	Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Alexandru Ardelean <aardelean@deviqon.com>,
	Cai Huoqing <cai.huoqing@linux.dev>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iio: st_sensors: Retry ID verification on failure
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 21:17:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220731211743.6ab9264f@jic23-huawei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6c839ba3-b671-76fb-95e1-94bf2f2da303@gmail.com>

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 21:51:55 +0300
Matti Lehtimäki <matti.lehtimaki@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31.7.2022 19.00, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 19:43:15 +0300
> > Matti Lehtimäki <matti.lehtimaki@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> Some sensors do not always start fast enough to read a valid ID from
> >> registers at first attempt. Let's retry at most 3 times with short sleep
> >> in between to fix random timing issues.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Matti Lehtimäki <matti.lehtimaki@gmail.com>  
> > Hi Matti,
> > 
> > My gut feeling is this isn't in a fast path, so why not just wait
> > for whatever the documented power up time of the sensor is?
> > 
> > I'd expect to see a sleep in st_sensors_power_enable() if one is
> > required.  
> 
> In the specification for the sensor (lis2hh12) I have on my device I
> found that the maximum boot time of the sensor (starting from Vdd power
> on) is defined as 20 ms. Not sure if the other sensors supported by the
> driver have different values but based on checking a couple of
> specifications I didn't find any bigger values so far.
> 
> >> +			msleep(20);  
> > How do we know 60msecs is long enough for all sensors?  
> 
> Based on the specification for the sensor I have and also driver used in
> Android kernel for my device (it uses a 3 x 20 ms loop) I think 20 ms is
> a good value but to be sure a slightly longer might make sense. As
> suggested in the other review comment by changing the regmap_read to
> regmap_read_poll_timeout the function doesn't always need to wait at
> least 20 ms in case first read doesn't provide the correct value, if a
> suitable shorter poll interval is used (something like 1-10 ms).
> 
> However testing on my device has shown that I still need to have a loop
> or at least a retry possibility because I have noticed a rare random
> read error (-6, happens after some time not at first read) when reading
> the id from the hardware. This could be due to for example internal
> init failure of the sensor chip causing an internal reset. Because of
> this read error regmap_read_poll_timeout returns with an error and
> without retrying to read the id the sensor probe fails.

Nasty. If you can get a confirmation that it's a possible failure on startup
from the manufacturer then I'd be happier with that justification to retry
rather than just sleep for say 30msec after power on.

Jonathan

> 
> -Matti


  reply	other threads:[~2022-07-31 20:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-24 16:43 [PATCH 1/2] iio: st_sensors: Retry ID verification on failure Matti Lehtimäki
2022-07-24 16:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] iio: st_sensors: Fix null pointer on defer_probe error Matti Lehtimäki
2022-07-25 21:24   ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-07-25 21:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] iio: st_sensors: Retry ID verification on failure Andy Shevchenko
2022-07-31 16:00 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-07-31 18:51   ` Matti Lehtimäki
2022-07-31 20:17     ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2022-08-03 18:20       ` Linus Walleij

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220731211743.6ab9264f@jic23-huawei \
    --to=jic23@kernel.org \
    --cc=aardelean@deviqon.com \
    --cc=cai.huoqing@linux.dev \
    --cc=lars@metafoo.de \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matti.lehtimaki@gmail.com \
    --cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
    --cc=~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).