From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] can: m_can: Create m_can core to leverage common
 code
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 06:27:02 -0600
Message-ID: <b3e35de2-6028-ca51-7796-414b20589ebc@ti.com>
References: <20181010142055.25271-1-dmurphy@ti.com>
 <20181010142055.25271-2-dmurphy@ti.com>
 <52811b27-00c0-f5e2-2b18-608ccf846723@grandegger.com>
 <349ef8be-f4c7-25cc-2c33-7ce1fd0b0f40@ti.com>
 <9003a544-83cf-7dce-7f14-4abd292d470e@grandegger.com>
 <b73e200c-8a6b-00e0-dabc-af3245cc36fd@ti.com>
 <69d3a046-2d55-06e0-fba7-c9a0d20e6daa@grandegger.com>
 <06e0146a-5f96-5f60-1ab3-be21b854932a@ti.com>
 <ed8717c2-5de3-a9f5-57c4-093496a0d5f1@grandegger.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <ed8717c2-5de3-a9f5-57c4-093496a0d5f1@grandegger.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>, mkl@pengutronix.de, davem@davemloft.net
Cc: linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-can.vger.kernel.org

Wolfgang

On 1/11/19 2:27 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hello Dan,
> 
> Am 10.01.19 um 13:53 schrieb Dan Murphy:
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> On 1/10/19 1:44 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> Hello Dan,
>>>
>>> sorry for my late response on that topic...
>>>
>>> Am 09.01.19 um 21:58 schrieb Dan Murphy:
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>
>>>> On 11/3/18 5:45 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>>> Hello Dan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 31.10.2018 um 21:15 schrieb Dan Murphy:
>>>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the review
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/27/2018 09:19 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Dan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for the RFC, could you please just do the necessary changes to the
>>>>>>> existing code. We can discuss about better names, etc. later. For
>>>>>>> the review if the common code I quickly did:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   mv m_can.c m_can_platform.c
>>>>>>>   mv m_can_core.c m_can.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The file names are similar to what we have for the C_CAN driver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   s/classdev/priv/
>>>>>>>   variable name s/m_can_dev/priv/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then your patch 1/3 looks as shown below. I'm going to comment on that
>>>>>>> one. The comments start with "***"....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you would like me to align the names with the c_can driver?
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be the obvious choice.
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *** I didn't review the rest of the patch for now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snipped the code to reply to the comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking to the generic code, you didn't really change the way
>>>>>>> the driver is accessing the registers. Also the interrupt handling
>>>>>>> and rx polling is as it was before. Does that work properly using
>>>>>>> the SPI interface of the TCAN4x5x?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want to change any of that yet.  Maybe my cover letter was not clear
>>>>>> or did not go through.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the intention was just to break out the functionality to create a MCAN framework
>>>>>> that can be used by devices that contain the Bosch MCAN core and provider their own protocal to access
>>>>>> the registers in the device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want to do any functional changes at this time on the IP code itself until we have a framework.
>>>>>> There should be no regression in the io mapped code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did comment on the interrupt handling and asked if a threaded work queue would affect CAN timing.
>>>>>> For the original TCAN driver this was the way it was implemented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do threaded interrupts with RX polling make sense? I think we need a
>>>>> common interface allowing to select hard-irqs+napi or threaded-irqs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have been working on this code for about a month now and I am *not happy* with the amount of change that needs
>>>> to be done to make the m_can a framework.
>>>>
>>>> I can tx/rx frames from another CAN device to the TCAN part but I have not even touched the iomapped code.
>>>>
>>>> The challenging part is that the m_can code that is currently available does not have to worry about atomic context because
>>>> there is no peripheral waiting.  Since the TCAN is a peripheral device we need to take into about the hard waits in IRQ context
>>>> as well as the atomic context.  Doing this creates many deltas in the base code that may break iomapped devices.  I have had to 
>>>> add the thread_irqs and now I am in the midst of the issue you brought up with napi.  I would have to schedule a queue for perp devices
>>>> and leave the non-threaded iomapped irq.
>>>>
>>>> At this point I think it may be wise to leave the m_can code alone as it is working and stable and just work on the TCAN driver as
>>>> a standalone driver.  A framework would be nice but I think it would destablize the m_can driver which is embedded in many SoC's and
>>>> we cannot possibly test everyone of them.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I do not have m_can hardware at hand.
>>>
>>>> What are your thoughts?
>>>
>>> What we need is a common set of functions doing tx, rx, error and state
>>> handling. This will requires substantial changes to the existing
>>> io-mapped m_can driver, of course. I still believe it's worth the
>>> effort, but I agree that it's difficult for you to re-write and test the
>>> existing m_can driver.
>>
>> OK I will keep working on it.  What you are describing is what I have done.
>> I have abstracted the register reads and writes away and I am in the process
>> of abstracting away the device specific initialization.
> 
> Would be nice if you could show your current implementation...
> 

I did submit v2 with the current implementation but the code has changed a bit since then
I clean up the code and post v3 today after I get the Rx working properly.

>>>
>>> What about implementing such a set of common functions plus the SPI
>>> specific part for your TCAN device. What do you/others think?
>>
>> As stated above this is what I have.  But the m_can driver was written for io-mapped that has no delays
>> so we need to take into about peripheral wait time in IRQ and atomic context.
>>
>> This is where the issues are stemming from mainly in the atomic context.
> 
> ... to understand a bit better what you exactly mean. Or does the last
> patch you sent already highlight them.

v3 will show the deltas

Dan

> 
> Wolfgang.
> 


-- 
------------------
Dan Murphy

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=uvhX=PT=vger.kernel.org=linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A936C43387
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 12:27:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CDA7214D8
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 12:27:25 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="O7WFWXvU"
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1732344AbfAKM1Y (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:27:24 -0500
Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]:43758 "EHLO
        fllv0016.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1732317AbfAKM1X (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:27:23 -0500
Received: from lelv0265.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.224])
        by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x0BCRE65095099;
        Fri, 11 Jan 2019 06:27:14 -0600
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com;
        s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1547209634;
        bh=qIFdAPAxjW/sCgm9kaO83MjoWNnh5kJ5F0gq8LewoyU=;
        h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To;
        b=O7WFWXvUacBtaLadAZZ1P0S8u6LCjZwpJAJxMjfMpDB9RkaEVZ/YbZ9Od6XknUe34
         5fUGpPeKEze2uy6bnC6zDmur8AqXhyi5sRtz5DAf8Z7hPBlczPfIfPgg22NpfslORz
         8VajnP3heiXjz9H/ls9PyUPzyxLotN2+LXfmudig=
Received: from DFLE103.ent.ti.com (dfle103.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.24])
        by lelv0265.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0BCREje063339
        (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL);
        Fri, 11 Jan 2019 06:27:14 -0600
Received: from DFLE101.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.22) by DFLE103.ent.ti.com
 (10.64.6.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
 cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Fri, 11
 Jan 2019 06:27:14 -0600
Received: from dlep32.itg.ti.com (157.170.170.100) by DFLE101.ent.ti.com
 (10.64.6.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0,
 cipher=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport;
 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 06:27:14 -0600
Received: from [172.22.105.16] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153])
        by dlep32.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x0BCRD4K008632;
        Fri, 11 Jan 2019 06:27:13 -0600
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] can: m_can: Create m_can core to leverage common
 code
To:     Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>, <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        <davem@davemloft.net>
CC:     <linux-can@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20181010142055.25271-1-dmurphy@ti.com>
 <20181010142055.25271-2-dmurphy@ti.com>
 <52811b27-00c0-f5e2-2b18-608ccf846723@grandegger.com>
 <349ef8be-f4c7-25cc-2c33-7ce1fd0b0f40@ti.com>
 <9003a544-83cf-7dce-7f14-4abd292d470e@grandegger.com>
 <b73e200c-8a6b-00e0-dabc-af3245cc36fd@ti.com>
 <69d3a046-2d55-06e0-fba7-c9a0d20e6daa@grandegger.com>
 <06e0146a-5f96-5f60-1ab3-be21b854932a@ti.com>
 <ed8717c2-5de3-a9f5-57c4-093496a0d5f1@grandegger.com>
From:   Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com>
Message-ID: <b3e35de2-6028-ca51-7796-414b20589ebc@ti.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jan 2019 06:27:02 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.3.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ed8717c2-5de3-a9f5-57c4-093496a0d5f1@grandegger.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Wolfgang

On 1/11/19 2:27 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hello Dan,
> 
> Am 10.01.19 um 13:53 schrieb Dan Murphy:
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> On 1/10/19 1:44 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> Hello Dan,
>>>
>>> sorry for my late response on that topic...
>>>
>>> Am 09.01.19 um 21:58 schrieb Dan Murphy:
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>
>>>> On 11/3/18 5:45 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>>> Hello Dan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 31.10.2018 um 21:15 schrieb Dan Murphy:
>>>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the review
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/27/2018 09:19 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Dan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for the RFC, could you please just do the necessary changes to the
>>>>>>> existing code. We can discuss about better names, etc. later. For
>>>>>>> the review if the common code I quickly did:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   mv m_can.c m_can_platform.c
>>>>>>>   mv m_can_core.c m_can.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The file names are similar to what we have for the C_CAN driver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   s/classdev/priv/
>>>>>>>   variable name s/m_can_dev/priv/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then your patch 1/3 looks as shown below. I'm going to comment on that
>>>>>>> one. The comments start with "***"....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you would like me to align the names with the c_can driver?
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be the obvious choice.
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *** I didn't review the rest of the patch for now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snipped the code to reply to the comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking to the generic code, you didn't really change the way
>>>>>>> the driver is accessing the registers. Also the interrupt handling
>>>>>>> and rx polling is as it was before. Does that work properly using
>>>>>>> the SPI interface of the TCAN4x5x?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want to change any of that yet.  Maybe my cover letter was not clear
>>>>>> or did not go through.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the intention was just to break out the functionality to create a MCAN framework
>>>>>> that can be used by devices that contain the Bosch MCAN core and provider their own protocal to access
>>>>>> the registers in the device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want to do any functional changes at this time on the IP code itself until we have a framework.
>>>>>> There should be no regression in the io mapped code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did comment on the interrupt handling and asked if a threaded work queue would affect CAN timing.
>>>>>> For the original TCAN driver this was the way it was implemented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do threaded interrupts with RX polling make sense? I think we need a
>>>>> common interface allowing to select hard-irqs+napi or threaded-irqs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have been working on this code for about a month now and I am *not happy* with the amount of change that needs
>>>> to be done to make the m_can a framework.
>>>>
>>>> I can tx/rx frames from another CAN device to the TCAN part but I have not even touched the iomapped code.
>>>>
>>>> The challenging part is that the m_can code that is currently available does not have to worry about atomic context because
>>>> there is no peripheral waiting.  Since the TCAN is a peripheral device we need to take into about the hard waits in IRQ context
>>>> as well as the atomic context.  Doing this creates many deltas in the base code that may break iomapped devices.  I have had to 
>>>> add the thread_irqs and now I am in the midst of the issue you brought up with napi.  I would have to schedule a queue for perp devices
>>>> and leave the non-threaded iomapped irq.
>>>>
>>>> At this point I think it may be wise to leave the m_can code alone as it is working and stable and just work on the TCAN driver as
>>>> a standalone driver.  A framework would be nice but I think it would destablize the m_can driver which is embedded in many SoC's and
>>>> we cannot possibly test everyone of them.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I do not have m_can hardware at hand.
>>>
>>>> What are your thoughts?
>>>
>>> What we need is a common set of functions doing tx, rx, error and state
>>> handling. This will requires substantial changes to the existing
>>> io-mapped m_can driver, of course. I still believe it's worth the
>>> effort, but I agree that it's difficult for you to re-write and test the
>>> existing m_can driver.
>>
>> OK I will keep working on it.  What you are describing is what I have done.
>> I have abstracted the register reads and writes away and I am in the process
>> of abstracting away the device specific initialization.
> 
> Would be nice if you could show your current implementation...
> 

I did submit v2 with the current implementation but the code has changed a bit since then
I clean up the code and post v3 today after I get the Rx working properly.

>>>
>>> What about implementing such a set of common functions plus the SPI
>>> specific part for your TCAN device. What do you/others think?
>>
>> As stated above this is what I have.  But the m_can driver was written for io-mapped that has no delays
>> so we need to take into about peripheral wait time in IRQ and atomic context.
>>
>> This is where the issues are stemming from mainly in the atomic context.
> 
> ... to understand a bit better what you exactly mean. Or does the last
> patch you sent already highlight them.

v3 will show the deltas

Dan

> 
> Wolfgang.
> 


-- 
------------------
Dan Murphy