All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>
To: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@gmail.com>
Cc: "David Härdeman" <david@hardeman.nu>,
	"Andy Walls" <awalls@md.metrocast.net>,
	linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Teach drivers/media/IR/ir-raw-event.c to use durations
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:29:14 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BBC88AA.4030808@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <j2g9e4733911004070611je836445apb6527b4e2d8137fb@mail.gmail.com>

Jon Smirl wrote:
> I had to rework this portion of code several times in the IR code I posted.
> 
> I had the core provide input_ir_queue() which was legal to call from
> interrupt context. Calling from interrupt context was an important
> aspect I missed in the first versions. I made this a common routine so
> that the code didn't get copied into all of the drivers. This code
> should have used kfifo but I didn't know about kfifo.
> 
>>> The question is though, is the kfifo and work handler really
> necessary?
> 
> Yes, otherwise it will get duplicated into all of the drivers that run
> in interrupt context like this GPIO one. Put this common code into the
> core so that the individual drivers writers don't mess it up.
> 
> void input_ir_queue(struct input_dev *dev, int sample)
> {
> 	unsigned int next;
> 
> 	spin_lock(dev->ir->queue.lock);
> 	dev->ir->queue.samples[dev->ir->queue.head] = sample;
> 	next = dev->ir->queue.head + 1;
> 	dev->ir->queue.head = (next >= MAX_SAMPLES ? 0 : next);
> 	spin_unlock(dev->ir->queue.lock);
> 
> 	schedule_work(&dev->ir->work);
> }

The big advantage of using kfifo is that you don't need to use a spinlock, if
there's just one consumer of the event. On the implementation I did, just
one code writes to the kfifo (the driver) and just one code reads from the 
kfifo, and multiplexing the data to the several decoders (and lirc_dev). 
So, no locks.

> 
> My GPIO implementation simply call input_it_queue() with the timing
> data. I collapsed multiple long space interrupts into one very long
> space. If you are using protocol engines, there is no need to detect
> the long trailing space. The protocol engine will trigger on the last
> pulse of the signal.
> 
> On the other hand, LIRC in user space needs the last long space to
> know when to flush the buffer from kernel space into user space. The
> timeout for this flush should be implemented in the LIRC compatibility
> driver, not ir-core. In this case my GPIO driver doesn't ever generate
> an event for the long space at the end of the message (because it
> doesn't end). Instead the LIRC compatibility layer should start a
> timer and flush when no data has been received for 200ms or whatever.

Agreed.

> static irqreturn_t dpeak_ir_irq(int irq, void *_ir)
> {
> 	struct ir_gpt *ir_gpt = _ir;
> 	int sample, count, delta, bit, wrap;
> 
> 	sample = in_be32(&ir_gpt->regs->status);
> 	out_be32(&ir_gpt->regs->status, 0xF);
> 
> 	count = sample >> 16;
> 	wrap = (sample >> 12) & 7;
> 	bit = (sample >> 8) & 1;
> 
> 	delta = count - ir_gpt->previous;
> 	delta += wrap * 0x10000;
> 
> 	ir_gpt->previous = count;
> 
> 	if (bit)
> 		delta = -delta;
> 
> 	input_ir_queue(ir_gpt->input, delta);
> 
> 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
> 
> For MSMCE I converted their format back into simple delays and fed it
> into input_ir_queue(). This was not done in interrupt context because
> of the way USB works. input_ir_queue() doesn't care - it works
> correctly when called from either context.
> 
> 				if (ir->last.command == 0x80) {
> 					bit = ((ir->buf_in[i] & MCE_PULSE_BIT) != 0);
> 					delta = (ir->buf_in[i] & MCE_PULSE_MASK) * MCE_TIME_BASE;
> 
> 					if ((ir->buf_in[i] & MCE_PULSE_MASK) == 0x7f) {
> 						if (ir->last.bit == bit)
> 							ir->last.delta += delta;
> 						else {
> 							ir->last.delta = delta;
> 							ir->last.bit = bit;
> 						}
> 						continue;
> 					}
> 					delta += ir->last.delta;
> 					ir->last.delta = 0;
> 					ir->last.bit = bit;
> 
> 					dev_dbg(&ir->usbdev->dev, "bit %d delta %d\n", bit, delta);
> 					if (bit)
> 						delta = -delta;
> 
> 					input_ir_queue(ir->input, delta);
> 				}
> 
> These delay messages are then fed into the protocol engines which
> process the pulses in parallel. Processing in parallel works, because
> that's how IR receivers work. When you shine a remote on an equipment
> rack, all of the equipment sees the command in parallel. The protocols
> are designed so that parallel decode works properly.

On the implementation I did, each event is passed to each decoder serialized (yet, as one keystroke
is a series of events, it behaves as if they are processed in parallel). We might create separate
kthreads for each decoder, and use a spinlock at kfifo, but I suspect that the end result will be
very close and we'll have more threads interfering at the samples collect, especially on those
(broken) hardware that don't have IRQ's to indicate a state transition, so the driver needs
to poll the samples.

-- 

Cheers,
Mauro

  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-07 13:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20100406104410.710253548@hardeman.nu>
2010-04-06 10:48 ` [RFC] Teach drivers/media/IR/ir-raw-event.c to use durations David Härdeman
2010-04-06 14:26   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2010-04-06 14:26     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2010-04-07 10:20     ` Andy Walls
2010-04-07 11:42       ` David Härdeman
2010-04-07 11:42         ` David Härdeman
2010-04-07 13:11         ` Jon Smirl
2010-04-07 13:29           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab [this message]
2010-04-07 15:03             ` Jon Smirl
2010-04-08  0:28         ` Andy Walls
2010-04-07 11:09     ` David Härdeman
2010-04-07 13:17       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab

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=4BBC88AA.4030808@infradead.org \
    --to=mchehab@infradead.org \
    --cc=awalls@md.metrocast.net \
    --cc=david@hardeman.nu \
    --cc=jonsmirl@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.