[PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable, postenable} positions

[PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable, postenable} positions

[Alexandru Ardelean]

The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions attach/detach
poll functions.

The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called first to attach the
poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be triggered.

Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called last to first
disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll function should be
detached.

For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also need to take
into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be put in places
that avoid the code for that cares about it.

Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
---
 drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
@@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
 	if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
+	ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
 	/* we continue with the triggered buffer */
 	ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer postenable failed\n");
+		iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
 {
 	struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
-	int ret;
 	u8 bit;
 
 	/* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or the touchscreen */
@@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
 	if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	/* continue with the triggered buffer */
-	ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
-	if (ret < 0)
-		dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable failed\n");
-
 	if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
-		return ret;
+		goto out;
 
 	/* if we are using DMA we must clear registers and end DMA */
 	dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
@@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
 
 	/* read overflow register to clear possible overflow status */
 	at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
-	return ret;
+
+out:
+	return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
 }
 
 static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops at91_buffer_setup_ops = {
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Ardelean, Alexandru]

On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions attach/detach
> poll functions.
> 
> The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called first to attach
> the
> poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be triggered.
> 
> Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called last to
> first
> disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll function should be
> detached.
> 
> For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also need to take
> into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be put in places
> that avoid the code for that cares about it.
> 

ping here

> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
> sama5d2_adc.c
> index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
> iio_dev *indio_dev)
>  	if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
>  	/* we continue with the triggered buffer */
>  	ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer postenable failed\n");
> +		iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>  {
>  	struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> -	int ret;
>  	u8 bit;
>  
>  	/* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or the touchscreen */
> @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
> *indio_dev)
>  	if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	/* continue with the triggered buffer */
> -	ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> -	if (ret < 0)
> -		dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable failed\n");
> -
>  	if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
> -		return ret;
> +		goto out;
>  
>  	/* if we are using DMA we must clear registers and end DMA */
>  	dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
> @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
> *indio_dev)
>  
>  	/* read overflow register to clear possible overflow status */
>  	at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
> -	return ret;
> +
> +out:
> +	return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>  }
>  
>  static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops at91_buffer_setup_ops = {
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Eugen.Hristev]

On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
>> The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions attach/detach
>> poll functions.
>>
>> The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called first to attach
>> the
>> poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be triggered.
>>
>> Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called last to
>> first
>> disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll function should be
>> detached.

Hi Alexandru,

Sorry for this late reply,

I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for 
predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing standard callback 
with my own, and have my specific at91 code before postenable and then 
calling the subsystem postenable,
and in similar way, for predisable, first call the subsystem predisable 
then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in postenable)

If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the pollfunction 
first), how is current code working ?
Should current code fail if the poll function is not attached in time ? 
Or there is a race between triggered data and the attachment of the 
pollfunc ?

I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it work because 
the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the pollfunc 
attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is not started) , 
can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc polling but no 
trigger started/no DMA started.

>>
>> For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also need to take
>> into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be put in places
>> that avoid the code for that cares about it.
>>
> 
> ping here
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
>> sama5d2_adc.c
>> index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>> @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
>> iio_dev *indio_dev)
>>        if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
>>                return -EINVAL;
>>
>> +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
>> +     if (ret)
>> +             return ret;
>> +
>>        /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
>>        ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
>>        if (ret) {
>>                dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer postenable failed\n");
>> +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>                return ret;
>>        }
>>
>> -     return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
>> +     return 0;
>>   }
>>
>>   static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>>   {
>>        struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>> -     int ret;
>>        u8 bit;
>>
>>        /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or the touchscreen */
>> @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
>> *indio_dev)
>>        if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
>>                return -EINVAL;
>>
>> -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
>> -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>> -     if (ret < 0)
>> -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable failed\n");
>> -
>>        if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
>> -             return ret;
>> +             goto out;
>>
>>        /* if we are using DMA we must clear registers and end DMA */
>>        dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
>> @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
>> *indio_dev)
>>
>>        /* read overflow register to clear possible overflow status */
>>        at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
>> -     return ret;
>> +
>> +out:


I would prefer if this label is named with a function name prefix, 
otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with other things in 
the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if code changes.

Thanks for the patch,
Eugen

>> +     return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>   }
>>
>>   static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops at91_buffer_setup_ops = {
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Eugen.Hristev]

On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:

> On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
>>> The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions attach/detach
>>> poll functions.
>>>
>>> The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called first to attach
>>> the
>>> poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be triggered.
>>>
>>> Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called last to
>>> first
>>> disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll function should be
>>> detached.
> 
> Hi Alexandru,
> 
> Sorry for this late reply,
> 
> I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
> predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing standard callback
> with my own, and have my specific at91 code before postenable and then
> calling the subsystem postenable,
> and in similar way, for predisable, first call the subsystem predisable
> then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in postenable)
> 
> If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the pollfunction
> first), how is current code working ?
> Should current code fail if the poll function is not attached in time ?
> Or there is a race between triggered data and the attachment of the
> pollfunc ?
> 
> I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it work because
> the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the pollfunc
> attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is not started) ,
> can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc polling but no
> trigger started/no DMA started.

I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using postenable 
first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also enable the 
trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
Is this the desired effect ? Normally when using DMA I would say we 
would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and coherent 
area etc.) and then enable the trigger.

> 
>>>
>>> For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also need to take
>>> into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be put in places
>>> that avoid the code for that cares about it.
>>>
>>
>> ping here
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
>>>    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
>>> sama5d2_adc.c
>>> index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>>> @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
>>> iio_dev *indio_dev)
>>>         if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
>>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
>>> +     if (ret)
>>> +             return ret;
>>> +
>>>         /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
>>>         ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
>>>         if (ret) {
>>>                 dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer postenable failed\n");
>>> +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>>                 return ret;
>>>         }
>>>
>>> -     return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
>>> +     return 0;
>>>    }
>>>
>>>    static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>>>    {
>>>         struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>> -     int ret;
>>>         u8 bit;
>>>
>>>         /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or the touchscreen */
>>> @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
>>> *indio_dev)
>>>         if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
>>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
>>> -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>> -     if (ret < 0)
>>> -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable failed\n");
>>> -
>>>         if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
>>> -             return ret;
>>> +             goto out;
>>>
>>>         /* if we are using DMA we must clear registers and end DMA */
>>>         dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
>>> @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
>>> *indio_dev)
>>>
>>>         /* read overflow register to clear possible overflow status */
>>>         at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
>>> -     return ret;
>>> +
>>> +out:
> 
> 
> I would prefer if this label is named with a function name prefix,
> otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with other things in
> the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if code changes.
> 
> Thanks for the patch,
> Eugen
> 
>>> +     return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>>    }
>>>
>>>    static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops at91_buffer_setup_ops = {
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Ardelean, Alexandru]

On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:19 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> 

Hey,

Sorry for the late reply.
I'm also juggling a few things.

> 
> On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> 
> > On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions
> > > > attach/detach
> > > > poll functions.
> > > > 
> > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called first to
> > > > attach
> > > > the
> > > > poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be
> > > > triggered.
> > > > 
> > > > Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called last
> > > > to
> > > > first
> > > > disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll function
> > > > should be
> > > > detached.
> > 
> > Hi Alexandru,
> > 
> > Sorry for this late reply,
> > 
> > I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
> > predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing standard callback
> > with my own, and have my specific at91 code before postenable and then
> > calling the subsystem postenable,
> > and in similar way, for predisable, first call the subsystem predisable
> > then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in postenable)
> > 
> > If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the
> > pollfunction
> > first), how is current code working ?
> > Should current code fail if the poll function is not attached in time ?
> > Or there is a race between triggered data and the attachment of the
> > pollfunc ?
> > 
> > I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it work because
> > the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the pollfunc
> > attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is not started)
> > ,
> > can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc polling but no
> > trigger started/no DMA started.
> 
> I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using postenable 
> first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also enable the 
> trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
> Is this the desired effect ? 

Yes.

> Normally when using DMA I would say we 
> would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and coherent 
> area etc.) and then enable the trigger.

So, there is a change in our tree [from some time ago].
See here:
https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8

Particularly, what's interesting is around line:
https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8#diff-0a87744ce945d2c1c89ea19f21fb35bbR722
And you may need to expand some stuff to see more of the function-body.
And some things may have changed in upstream IIO since that change.

The change is to make the pollfunc attach/detach become part of the IIO
framework, because plenty of drivers just call
iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() & iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() to
manually attach/detach the pollfunc for triggered buffers.

That change is from 2015, and since then, some drivers were added that just
manually attach/detach the pollfunc [and do nothing more with the
postenable/predisable hooks].

I tried to upstream a more complete version of that patch a while ago [u1].
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/

The conclusion was to first fix the attach/detach pollfunc order in all IIO
drivers, so that when patch [u1] is applied, there is no more discussion
about the correct order for attach/detach pollfunc.

Coming back here [and to your question], my answer is: I don't know if the
at91 DMA needs to be enabled/disabled before/after the pollfunc
attach/detach.
This sounds like specific stuff for at91 [which is fine].

It could be that some other hooks may need to used to enable DMA
before/after the attach/detach pollfunc. Maybe preenable()/postdisable() ?

In any case, what I would like [with this discussion], is to resolve a
situation where we can get closer to moving the attach/pollfunc code to IIO
core. So, if AT91 requires a different ordering, I think you would be more
appropriate to tell me, and propose an alternative to this patch.

Thanks :)
Alex

> 
> > > > For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also need to
> > > > take
> > > > into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be put in
> > > > places
> > > > that avoid the code for that cares about it.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > ping here
> > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> > > >    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
> > > > sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
> > > > iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > > >         if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > > > 
> > > > +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > +     if (ret)
> > > > +             return ret;
> > > > +
> > > >         /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > >         ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
> > > >         if (ret) {
> > > >                 dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer postenable
> > > > failed\n");
> > > > +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > >                 return ret;
> > > >         }
> > > > 
> > > > -     return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > +     return 0;
> > > >    }
> > > > 
> > > >    static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > > >    {
> > > >         struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > > -     int ret;
> > > >         u8 bit;
> > > > 
> > > >         /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or the
> > > > touchscreen */
> > > > @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > iio_dev
> > > > *indio_dev)
> > > >         if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > > > 
> > > > -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > -     if (ret < 0)
> > > > -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable
> > > > failed\n");
> > > > -
> > > >         if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
> > > > -             return ret;
> > > > +             goto out;
> > > > 
> > > >         /* if we are using DMA we must clear registers and end DMA
> > > > */
> > > >         dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
> > > > @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > iio_dev
> > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > 
> > > >         /* read overflow register to clear possible overflow status
> > > > */
> > > >         at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
> > > > -     return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +out:
> > 
> > I would prefer if this label is named with a function name prefix,
> > otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with other things in
> > the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if code
> > changes.
> > 

Sure.
Will do that.

I did not bother much with these labels, because after applying [u1], some
of them [maybe all] should go away.


> > Thanks for the patch,
> > Eugen
> > 
> > > > +     return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > >    }
> > > > 
> > > >    static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops at91_buffer_setup_ops =
> > > > {
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > 
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Eugen.Hristev]

On 29.11.2019 09:02, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:

> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:19 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
>>
> 
> Hey,
> 
> Sorry for the late reply.
> I'm also juggling a few things.
> 
>>
>> On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
>>>>> The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions
>>>>> attach/detach
>>>>> poll functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called first to
>>>>> attach
>>>>> the
>>>>> poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be
>>>>> triggered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called last
>>>>> to
>>>>> first
>>>>> disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll function
>>>>> should be
>>>>> detached.
>>>
>>> Hi Alexandru,
>>>
>>> Sorry for this late reply,
>>>
>>> I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
>>> predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing standard callback
>>> with my own, and have my specific at91 code before postenable and then
>>> calling the subsystem postenable,
>>> and in similar way, for predisable, first call the subsystem predisable
>>> then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in postenable)
>>>
>>> If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the
>>> pollfunction
>>> first), how is current code working ?
>>> Should current code fail if the poll function is not attached in time ?
>>> Or there is a race between triggered data and the attachment of the
>>> pollfunc ?
>>>
>>> I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it work because
>>> the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the pollfunc
>>> attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is not started)
>>> ,
>>> can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc polling but no
>>> trigger started/no DMA started.
>>
>> I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using postenable
>> first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also enable the
>> trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
>> Is this the desired effect ?
> 
> Yes.

How is this correct ? We start the trigger but have no buffer to carry 
to... what happens with the data ? -> I think we both have an answer to 
that, as you state below

> 
>> Normally when using DMA I would say we
>> would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and coherent
>> area etc.) and then enable the trigger.
> 
> So, there is a change in our tree [from some time ago].
> See here:
> https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8
> 
> Particularly, what's interesting is around line:
> https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8#diff-0a87744ce945d2c1c89ea19f21fb35bbR722
> And you may need to expand some stuff to see more of the function-body.
> And some things may have changed in upstream IIO since that change.
> 
> The change is to make the pollfunc attach/detach become part of the IIO
> framework, because plenty of drivers just call
> iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() & iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() to
> manually attach/detach the pollfunc for triggered buffers.

Okay, I understand this. at91-sama5d2_adc does not manually 
attach/detach the pollfunc. So why do we need to change anything here ?


> 
> That change is from 2015, and since then, some drivers were added that just
> manually attach/detach the pollfunc [and do nothing more with the
> postenable/predisable hooks].
> 
> I tried to upstream a more complete version of that patch a while ago [u1].
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/
> 
> The conclusion was to first fix the attach/detach pollfunc order in all IIO
> drivers, so that when patch [u1] is applied, there is no more discussion
> about the correct order for attach/detach pollfunc.

Allright, what is required to be fixed regarding the order, in this 
specific case? We enable the DMA, and then we do the normal 'postenable' 
that was called anyway if we did not override the 'postenable' in the 
ops. Do you want to move this code to 'preenable' and keep 'postenable' 
to the standard subsystem one ?

The same applies to the predisable, we first call the subsystem 
'predisable' then do the specific at91 stuff. You want to move this to 
the 'postdisable' ?

I think reverting the order inside the functions themselves is not good 
as we replace the order of starting trigger/DMA setup.
So, coming to your question below...

> 
> Coming back here [and to your question], my answer is: I don't know if the
> at91 DMA needs to be enabled/disabled before/after the pollfunc
> attach/detach.
> This sounds like specific stuff for at91 [which is fine].
> 
> It could be that some other hooks may need to used to enable DMA
> before/after the attach/detach pollfunc. Maybe preenable()/postdisable() ?
> 
> In any case, what I would like [with this discussion], is to resolve a
> situation where we can get closer to moving the attach/pollfunc code to IIO
> core. So, if AT91 requires a different ordering, I think you would be more
> appropriate to tell me, and propose an alternative to this patch.

... yes, this looks more appropriate, to move things to 
'preenable/postdisable', if you feel like 'postenable/predisable' is not 
the proper place to put them.
But the order itself, first enable DMA then trigger, and disable in 
reverse order, I do not think there is anything wrong with that? Am I 
misunderstanding ?

If Jonathan or Ludovic have a different idea, please let me know.

Also, I can test your patch to see if everything is fine.

Thanks,
Eugen

> 
> Thanks :)
> Alex
> 
>>
>>>>> For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also need to
>>>>> take
>>>>> into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be put in
>>>>> places
>>>>> that avoid the code for that cares about it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ping here
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
>>>>>     1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>>>>> b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
>>>>> sama5d2_adc.c
>>>>> index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>>>>> @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
>>>>> iio_dev *indio_dev)
>>>>>          if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
>>>>>                  return -EINVAL;
>>>>>
>>>>> +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
>>>>> +     if (ret)
>>>>> +             return ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>>          /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
>>>>>          ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
>>>>>          if (ret) {
>>>>>                  dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer postenable
>>>>> failed\n");
>>>>> +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>>>>                  return ret;
>>>>>          }
>>>>>
>>>>> -     return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
>>>>> +     return 0;
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>          struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>>>> -     int ret;
>>>>>          u8 bit;
>>>>>
>>>>>          /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or the
>>>>> touchscreen */
>>>>> @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
>>>>> iio_dev
>>>>> *indio_dev)
>>>>>          if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
>>>>>                  return -EINVAL;
>>>>>
>>>>> -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
>>>>> -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>>>> -     if (ret < 0)
>>>>> -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable
>>>>> failed\n");
>>>>> -
>>>>>          if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
>>>>> -             return ret;
>>>>> +             goto out;
>>>>>
>>>>>          /* if we are using DMA we must clear registers and end DMA
>>>>> */
>>>>>          dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
>>>>> @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
>>>>> iio_dev
>>>>> *indio_dev)
>>>>>
>>>>>          /* read overflow register to clear possible overflow status
>>>>> */
>>>>>          at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
>>>>> -     return ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +out:
>>>
>>> I would prefer if this label is named with a function name prefix,
>>> otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with other things in
>>> the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if code
>>> changes.
>>>
> 
> Sure.
> Will do that.
> 
> I did not bother much with these labels, because after applying [u1], some
> of them [maybe all] should go away.
> 
> 
>>> Thanks for the patch,
>>> Eugen
>>>
>>>>> +     return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops at91_buffer_setup_ops =
>>>>> {
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Ardelean, Alexandru]

On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 09:49 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> [External]
> 
> 
> 
> On 29.11.2019 09:02, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:19 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> > 
> > Hey,
> > 
> > Sorry for the late reply.
> > I'm also juggling a few things.
> > 
> > > On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions
> > > > > > attach/detach
> > > > > > poll functions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called first to
> > > > > > attach
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be
> > > > > > triggered.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called
> > > > > > last
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll function
> > > > > > should be
> > > > > > detached.
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Alexandru,
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry for this late reply,
> > > > 
> > > > I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
> > > > predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing standard
> > > > callback
> > > > with my own, and have my specific at91 code before postenable and
> > > > then
> > > > calling the subsystem postenable,
> > > > and in similar way, for predisable, first call the subsystem
> > > > predisable
> > > > then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in postenable)
> > > > 
> > > > If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the
> > > > pollfunction
> > > > first), how is current code working ?
> > > > Should current code fail if the poll function is not attached in
> > > > time ?
> > > > Or there is a race between triggered data and the attachment of the
> > > > pollfunc ?
> > > > 
> > > > I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it work
> > > > because
> > > > the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the pollfunc
> > > > attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is not
> > > > started)
> > > > ,
> > > > can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc polling
> > > > but no
> > > > trigger started/no DMA started.
> > > 
> > > I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using postenable
> > > first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also enable
> > > the
> > > trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
> > > Is this the desired effect ?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> How is this correct ? We start the trigger but have no buffer to carry 
> to... what happens with the data ? -> I think we both have an answer to 
> that, as you state below
> 
> > > Normally when using DMA I would say we
> > > would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and
> > > coherent
> > > area etc.) and then enable the trigger.
> > 
> > So, there is a change in our tree [from some time ago].
> > See here:
> > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8
> > 
> > Particularly, what's interesting is around line:
> > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8#diff-0a87744ce945d2c1c89ea19f21fb35bbR722
> > And you may need to expand some stuff to see more of the function-body.
> > And some things may have changed in upstream IIO since that change.
> > 
> > The change is to make the pollfunc attach/detach become part of the IIO
> > framework, because plenty of drivers just call
> > iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() & iio_triggered_buffer_predisable()
> > to
> > manually attach/detach the pollfunc for triggered buffers.
> 
> Okay, I understand this. at91-sama5d2_adc does not manually 
> attach/detach the pollfunc. So why do we need to change anything here ?
> 
> 
> > That change is from 2015, and since then, some drivers were added that
> > just
> > manually attach/detach the pollfunc [and do nothing more with the
> > postenable/predisable hooks].
> > 
> > I tried to upstream a more complete version of that patch a while ago
> > [u1].
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/
> > 
> > The conclusion was to first fix the attach/detach pollfunc order in all
> > IIO
> > drivers, so that when patch [u1] is applied, there is no more
> > discussion
> > about the correct order for attach/detach pollfunc.
> 
> Allright, what is required to be fixed regarding the order, in this 
> specific case? We enable the DMA, and then we do the normal 'postenable' 
> that was called anyway if we did not override the 'postenable' in the 
> ops. Do you want to move this code to 'preenable' and keep 'postenable' 
> to the standard subsystem one ?
> 
> The same applies to the predisable, we first call the subsystem 
> 'predisable' then do the specific at91 stuff. You want to move this to 
> the 'postdisable' ?
> 
> I think reverting the order inside the functions themselves is not good 
> as we replace the order of starting trigger/DMA setup.
> So, coming to your question below...
> 
> > Coming back here [and to your question], my answer is: I don't know if
> > the
> > at91 DMA needs to be enabled/disabled before/after the pollfunc
> > attach/detach.
> > This sounds like specific stuff for at91 [which is fine].
> > 
> > It could be that some other hooks may need to used to enable DMA
> > before/after the attach/detach pollfunc. Maybe
> > preenable()/postdisable() ?
> > 
> > In any case, what I would like [with this discussion], is to resolve a
> > situation where we can get closer to moving the attach/pollfunc code to
> > IIO
> > core. So, if AT91 requires a different ordering, I think you would be
> > more
> > appropriate to tell me, and propose an alternative to this patch.
> 
> ... yes, this looks more appropriate, to move things to 
> 'preenable/postdisable', if you feel like 'postenable/predisable' is not 
> the proper place to put them.
> But the order itself, first enable DMA then trigger, and disable in 
> reverse order, I do not think there is anything wrong with that? Am I 
> misunderstanding ?

Should be good.

> 
> If Jonathan or Ludovic have a different idea, please let me know.

There is an alternative here [to this].
Maybe using the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration that Lars wrote [1].
This would avoid calling dmaengine_terminate_sync() and similar hooks in
the AT91 driver. That also preserves the correct order (start DMA first,
then attach pollfunc ; and reverse on disable).
But that is more work; not on the patch itself, but more on the testing.

[1] Upstreaming more parts for the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration is on
my to-do-list as well. I think there are still some patches that we use,
but are not upstreamed yet.

I'll come-up a with a V2 for this with preenable()/postdisable()
alternative here.

Thanks
Alex

> 
> Also, I can test your patch to see if everything is fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eugen
> 
> > Thanks :)
> > Alex
> > 
> > > > > > For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also
> > > > > > need to
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be put
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > places
> > > > > > that avoid the code for that cares about it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ping here
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <
> > > > > > alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >     drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> > > > > >     1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
> > > > > > sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int
> > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
> > > > > > iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > > > > >          if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > >                  return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > +     if (ret)
> > > > > > +             return ret;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >          /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > >          ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
> > > > > >          if (ret) {
> > > > > >                  dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer postenable
> > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > >                  return ret;
> > > > > >          }
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -     return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > +     return 0;
> > > > > >     }
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
> > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > >     {
> > > > > >          struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > > > > -     int ret;
> > > > > >          u8 bit;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >          /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or the
> > > > > > touchscreen */
> > > > > > @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int
> > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > >          if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > >                  return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > -     if (ret < 0)
> > > > > > -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable
> > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > -
> > > > > >          if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
> > > > > > -             return ret;
> > > > > > +             goto out;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >          /* if we are using DMA we must clear registers and end
> > > > > > DMA
> > > > > > */
> > > > > >          dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
> > > > > > @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int
> > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >          /* read overflow register to clear possible overflow
> > > > > > status
> > > > > > */
> > > > > >          at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
> > > > > > -     return ret;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +out:
> > > > 
> > > > I would prefer if this label is named with a function name prefix,
> > > > otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with other things
> > > > in
> > > > the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if code
> > > > changes.
> > > > 
> > 
> > Sure.
> > Will do that.
> > 
> > I did not bother much with these labels, because after applying [u1],
> > some
> > of them [maybe all] should go away.
> > 
> > 
> > > > Thanks for the patch,
> > > > Eugen
> > > > 
> > > > > > +     return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > >     }
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops
> > > > > > at91_buffer_setup_ops =
> > > > > > {
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > 
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Eugen.Hristev]

On 03.12.2019 14:04, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:

> On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 09:49 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
>> [External]
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29.11.2019 09:02, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:19 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late reply.
>>> I'm also juggling a few things.
>>>
>>>> On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
>>>>>>> The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions
>>>>>>> attach/detach
>>>>>>> poll functions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called first to
>>>>>>> attach
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be
>>>>>>> triggered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll function
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> detached.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alexandru,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for this late reply,
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
>>>>> predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing standard
>>>>> callback
>>>>> with my own, and have my specific at91 code before postenable and
>>>>> then
>>>>> calling the subsystem postenable,
>>>>> and in similar way, for predisable, first call the subsystem
>>>>> predisable
>>>>> then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in postenable)
>>>>>
>>>>> If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the
>>>>> pollfunction
>>>>> first), how is current code working ?
>>>>> Should current code fail if the poll function is not attached in
>>>>> time ?
>>>>> Or there is a race between triggered data and the attachment of the
>>>>> pollfunc ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it work
>>>>> because
>>>>> the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the pollfunc
>>>>> attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is not
>>>>> started)
>>>>> ,
>>>>> can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc polling
>>>>> but no
>>>>> trigger started/no DMA started.
>>>>
>>>> I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using postenable
>>>> first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also enable
>>>> the
>>>> trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
>>>> Is this the desired effect ?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> How is this correct ? We start the trigger but have no buffer to carry
>> to... what happens with the data ? -> I think we both have an answer to
>> that, as you state below
>>
>>>> Normally when using DMA I would say we
>>>> would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and
>>>> coherent
>>>> area etc.) and then enable the trigger.
>>>
>>> So, there is a change in our tree [from some time ago].
>>> See here:
>>> https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8
>>>
>>> Particularly, what's interesting is around line:
>>> https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8#diff-0a87744ce945d2c1c89ea19f21fb35bbR722
>>> And you may need to expand some stuff to see more of the function-body.
>>> And some things may have changed in upstream IIO since that change.
>>>
>>> The change is to make the pollfunc attach/detach become part of the IIO
>>> framework, because plenty of drivers just call
>>> iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() & iio_triggered_buffer_predisable()
>>> to
>>> manually attach/detach the pollfunc for triggered buffers.
>>
>> Okay, I understand this. at91-sama5d2_adc does not manually
>> attach/detach the pollfunc. So why do we need to change anything here ?
>>
>>
>>> That change is from 2015, and since then, some drivers were added that
>>> just
>>> manually attach/detach the pollfunc [and do nothing more with the
>>> postenable/predisable hooks].
>>>
>>> I tried to upstream a more complete version of that patch a while ago
>>> [u1].
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/
>>>
>>> The conclusion was to first fix the attach/detach pollfunc order in all
>>> IIO
>>> drivers, so that when patch [u1] is applied, there is no more
>>> discussion
>>> about the correct order for attach/detach pollfunc.
>>
>> Allright, what is required to be fixed regarding the order, in this
>> specific case? We enable the DMA, and then we do the normal 'postenable'
>> that was called anyway if we did not override the 'postenable' in the
>> ops. Do you want to move this code to 'preenable' and keep 'postenable'
>> to the standard subsystem one ?
>>
>> The same applies to the predisable, we first call the subsystem
>> 'predisable' then do the specific at91 stuff. You want to move this to
>> the 'postdisable' ?
>>
>> I think reverting the order inside the functions themselves is not good
>> as we replace the order of starting trigger/DMA setup.
>> So, coming to your question below...
>>
>>> Coming back here [and to your question], my answer is: I don't know if
>>> the
>>> at91 DMA needs to be enabled/disabled before/after the pollfunc
>>> attach/detach.
>>> This sounds like specific stuff for at91 [which is fine].
>>>
>>> It could be that some other hooks may need to used to enable DMA
>>> before/after the attach/detach pollfunc. Maybe
>>> preenable()/postdisable() ?
>>>
>>> In any case, what I would like [with this discussion], is to resolve a
>>> situation where we can get closer to moving the attach/pollfunc code to
>>> IIO
>>> core. So, if AT91 requires a different ordering, I think you would be
>>> more
>>> appropriate to tell me, and propose an alternative to this patch.
>>
>> ... yes, this looks more appropriate, to move things to
>> 'preenable/postdisable', if you feel like 'postenable/predisable' is not
>> the proper place to put them.
>> But the order itself, first enable DMA then trigger, and disable in
>> reverse order, I do not think there is anything wrong with that? Am I
>> misunderstanding ?
> 
> Should be good.
> 
>>
>> If Jonathan or Ludovic have a different idea, please let me know.
> 
> There is an alternative here [to this].
> Maybe using the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration that Lars wrote [1].
> This would avoid calling dmaengine_terminate_sync() and similar hooks in
> the AT91 driver. That also preserves the correct order (start DMA first,
> then attach pollfunc ; and reverse on disable).
> But that is more work; not on the patch itself, but more on the testing.

Initially, when I implemented the DMA part for this driver, this was the 
idea. However the DMA engine was not used at that time by anyone , and I 
could not make it work properly. Jonathan advised at that moment to use 
this current framework.

> 
> [1] Upstreaming more parts for the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration is on
> my to-do-list as well. I think there are still some patches that we use,
> but are not upstreamed yet.
> 
> I'll come-up a with a V2 for this with preenable()/postdisable()
> alternative here.

Ok, I will test it .

What I do not understand completely is why it bothers you to have at91 
specific code in postenable / predisable.
The same thing will happen will happen with preenable/postdisable: 
specific at91 code will be called after subsystem preenable and before 
subsystem postdisable.

> 
> Thanks
> Alex
> 
>>
>> Also, I can test your patch to see if everything is fine.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eugen
>>
>>> Thanks :)
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>>>>> For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also
>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>> into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be put
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> places
>>>>>>> that avoid the code for that cares about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ping here
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <
>>>>>>> alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>      drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
>>>>>>>      1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>>>>>>> b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
>>>>>>> sama5d2_adc.c
>>>>>>> index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>>>>>>> @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int
>>>>>>> at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
>>>>>>> iio_dev *indio_dev)
>>>>>>>           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
>>>>>>> INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
>>>>>>>                   return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
>>>>>>> +     if (ret)
>>>>>>> +             return ret;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>           /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
>>>>>>>           ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
>>>>>>>           if (ret) {
>>>>>>>                   dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer postenable
>>>>>>> failed\n");
>>>>>>> +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>>>>>>                   return ret;
>>>>>>>           }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -     return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
>>>>>>> +     return 0;
>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
>>>>>>> *indio_dev)
>>>>>>>      {
>>>>>>>           struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>>>>>> -     int ret;
>>>>>>>           u8 bit;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or the
>>>>>>> touchscreen */
>>>>>>> @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int
>>>>>>> at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
>>>>>>> iio_dev
>>>>>>> *indio_dev)
>>>>>>>           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
>>>>>>> INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
>>>>>>>                   return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
>>>>>>> -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>>>>>> -     if (ret < 0)
>>>>>>> -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable
>>>>>>> failed\n");
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>           if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
>>>>>>> -             return ret;
>>>>>>> +             goto out;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           /* if we are using DMA we must clear registers and end
>>>>>>> DMA
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>           dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
>>>>>>> @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int
>>>>>>> at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
>>>>>>> iio_dev
>>>>>>> *indio_dev)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           /* read overflow register to clear possible overflow
>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>           at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
>>>>>>> -     return ret;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +out:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer if this label is named with a function name prefix,
>>>>> otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with other things
>>>>> in
>>>>> the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if code
>>>>> changes.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>> Will do that.
>>>
>>> I did not bother much with these labels, because after applying [u1],
>>> some
>>> of them [maybe all] should go away.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the patch,
>>>>> Eugen
>>>>>
>>>>>>> +     return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops
>>>>>>> at91_buffer_setup_ops =
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>>>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Ardelean, Alexandru]

On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 12:17 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> 
> On 03.12.2019 14:04, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 09:49 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> > > [External]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 29.11.2019 09:02, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:19 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hey,
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry for the late reply.
> > > > I'm also juggling a few things.
> > > > 
> > > > > On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> > > > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions
> > > > > > > > attach/detach
> > > > > > > > poll functions.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called
> > > > > > > > first to
> > > > > > > > attach
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be
> > > > > > > > triggered.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be
> > > > > > > > called
> > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll
> > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > detached.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi Alexandru,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sorry for this late reply,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
> > > > > > predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing standard
> > > > > > callback
> > > > > > with my own, and have my specific at91 code before postenable
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > calling the subsystem postenable,
> > > > > > and in similar way, for predisable, first call the subsystem
> > > > > > predisable
> > > > > > then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in
> > > > > > postenable)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the
> > > > > > pollfunction
> > > > > > first), how is current code working ?
> > > > > > Should current code fail if the poll function is not attached
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > time ?
> > > > > > Or there is a race between triggered data and the attachment of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > pollfunc ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it work
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the
> > > > > > pollfunc
> > > > > > attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is not
> > > > > > started)
> > > > > > ,
> > > > > > can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc
> > > > > > polling
> > > > > > but no
> > > > > > trigger started/no DMA started.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using
> > > > > postenable
> > > > > first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also
> > > > > enable
> > > > > the
> > > > > trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
> > > > > Is this the desired effect ?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes.
> > > 
> > > How is this correct ? We start the trigger but have no buffer to
> > > carry
> > > to... what happens with the data ? -> I think we both have an answer
> > > to
> > > that, as you state below
> > > 
> > > > > Normally when using DMA I would say we
> > > > > would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and
> > > > > coherent
> > > > > area etc.) and then enable the trigger.
> > > > 
> > > > So, there is a change in our tree [from some time ago].
> > > > See here:
> > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8
> > > > 
> > > > Particularly, what's interesting is around line:
> > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8#diff-0a87744ce945d2c1c89ea19f21fb35bbR722
> > > > And you may need to expand some stuff to see more of the function-
> > > > body.
> > > > And some things may have changed in upstream IIO since that change.
> > > > 
> > > > The change is to make the pollfunc attach/detach become part of the
> > > > IIO
> > > > framework, because plenty of drivers just call
> > > > iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() &
> > > > iio_triggered_buffer_predisable()
> > > > to
> > > > manually attach/detach the pollfunc for triggered buffers.
> > > 
> > > Okay, I understand this. at91-sama5d2_adc does not manually
> > > attach/detach the pollfunc. So why do we need to change anything here
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > That change is from 2015, and since then, some drivers were added
> > > > that
> > > > just
> > > > manually attach/detach the pollfunc [and do nothing more with the
> > > > postenable/predisable hooks].
> > > > 
> > > > I tried to upstream a more complete version of that patch a while
> > > > ago
> > > > [u1].
> > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
> > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/
> > > > 
> > > > The conclusion was to first fix the attach/detach pollfunc order in
> > > > all
> > > > IIO
> > > > drivers, so that when patch [u1] is applied, there is no more
> > > > discussion
> > > > about the correct order for attach/detach pollfunc.
> > > 
> > > Allright, what is required to be fixed regarding the order, in this
> > > specific case? We enable the DMA, and then we do the normal
> > > 'postenable'
> > > that was called anyway if we did not override the 'postenable' in the
> > > ops. Do you want to move this code to 'preenable' and keep
> > > 'postenable'
> > > to the standard subsystem one ?
> > > 
> > > The same applies to the predisable, we first call the subsystem
> > > 'predisable' then do the specific at91 stuff. You want to move this
> > > to
> > > the 'postdisable' ?
> > > 
> > > I think reverting the order inside the functions themselves is not
> > > good
> > > as we replace the order of starting trigger/DMA setup.
> > > So, coming to your question below...
> > > 
> > > > Coming back here [and to your question], my answer is: I don't know
> > > > if
> > > > the
> > > > at91 DMA needs to be enabled/disabled before/after the pollfunc
> > > > attach/detach.
> > > > This sounds like specific stuff for at91 [which is fine].
> > > > 
> > > > It could be that some other hooks may need to used to enable DMA
> > > > before/after the attach/detach pollfunc. Maybe
> > > > preenable()/postdisable() ?
> > > > 
> > > > In any case, what I would like [with this discussion], is to
> > > > resolve a
> > > > situation where we can get closer to moving the attach/pollfunc
> > > > code to
> > > > IIO
> > > > core. So, if AT91 requires a different ordering, I think you would
> > > > be
> > > > more
> > > > appropriate to tell me, and propose an alternative to this patch.
> > > 
> > > ... yes, this looks more appropriate, to move things to
> > > 'preenable/postdisable', if you feel like 'postenable/predisable' is
> > > not
> > > the proper place to put them.
> > > But the order itself, first enable DMA then trigger, and disable in
> > > reverse order, I do not think there is anything wrong with that? Am I
> > > misunderstanding ?
> > 
> > Should be good.
> > 
> > > If Jonathan or Ludovic have a different idea, please let me know.
> > 
> > There is an alternative here [to this].
> > Maybe using the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration that Lars wrote [1].
> > This would avoid calling dmaengine_terminate_sync() and similar hooks
> > in
> > the AT91 driver. That also preserves the correct order (start DMA
> > first,
> > then attach pollfunc ; and reverse on disable).
> > But that is more work; not on the patch itself, but more on the
> > testing.
> 
> Initially, when I implemented the DMA part for this driver, this was the 
> idea. However the DMA engine was not used at that time by anyone , and I 
> could not make it work properly. Jonathan advised at that moment to use 
> this current framework.
> 
> > [1] Upstreaming more parts for the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration
> > is on
> > my to-do-list as well. I think there are still some patches that we
> > use,
> > but are not upstreamed yet.
> > 
> > I'll come-up a with a V2 for this with preenable()/postdisable()
> > alternative here.
> 
> Ok, I will test it .
> 
> What I do not understand completely is why it bothers you to have at91 
> specific code in postenable / predisable.
> The same thing will happen will happen with preenable/postdisable: 
> specific at91 code will be called after subsystem preenable and before 
> subsystem postdisable.

Because I am preparing a framework change to IIO core and all IIO drivers
in mainline need to be resolved when that change happens.
I am not sure if the change will break any driver, but at least we can
minimalize breakage.

> 
> > Thanks
> > Alex
> > 
> > > Also, I can test your patch to see if everything is fine.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Eugen
> > > 
> > > > Thanks :)
> > > > Alex
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also
> > > > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be
> > > > > > > > put
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > places
> > > > > > > > that avoid the code for that cares about it.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ping here
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <
> > > > > > > > alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >      drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++--
> > > > > > > > -------
> > > > > > > >      1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
> > > > > > > > sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
> > > > > > > > iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > >           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > > > >                   return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > +     if (ret)
> > > > > > > > +             return ret;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > >           /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > > >           ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > >           if (ret) {
> > > > > > > >                   dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer
> > > > > > > > postenable
> > > > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > > > +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > >                   return ret;
> > > > > > > >           }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -     return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > +     return 0;
> > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >      static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
> > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > >      {
> > > > > > > >           struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > -     int ret;
> > > > > > > >           u8 bit;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >           /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > touchscreen */
> > > > > > > > @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > >           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > > > >                   return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > > > -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > -     if (ret < 0)
> > > > > > > > -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable
> > > > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > >           if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
> > > > > > > > -             return ret;
> > > > > > > > +             goto out;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >           /* if we are using DMA we must clear registers
> > > > > > > > and end
> > > > > > > > DMA
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > >           dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
> > > > > > > > @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >           /* read overflow register to clear possible
> > > > > > > > overflow
> > > > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > >           at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
> > > > > > > > -     return ret;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +out:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I would prefer if this label is named with a function name
> > > > > > prefix,
> > > > > > otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with other
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if code
> > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Sure.
> > > > Will do that.
> > > > 
> > > > I did not bother much with these labels, because after applying
> > > > [u1],
> > > > some
> > > > of them [maybe all] should go away.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks for the patch,
> > > > > > Eugen
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > +     return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >      static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops
> > > > > > > > at91_buffer_setup_ops =
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > 
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Ludovic Desroches]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Eugen Hristev - M18282 wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29.11.2019 09:02, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:19 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> >>
> > 
> > Hey,
> > 
> > Sorry for the late reply.
> > I'm also juggling a few things.
> > 
> >>
> >> On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> >>>>> The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions
> >>>>> attach/detach
> >>>>> poll functions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called first to
> >>>>> attach
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be
> >>>>> triggered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called last
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> first
> >>>>> disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll function
> >>>>> should be
> >>>>> detached.
> >>>
> >>> Hi Alexandru,
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for this late reply,
> >>>
> >>> I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
> >>> predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing standard callback
> >>> with my own, and have my specific at91 code before postenable and then
> >>> calling the subsystem postenable,
> >>> and in similar way, for predisable, first call the subsystem predisable
> >>> then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in postenable)
> >>>
> >>> If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the
> >>> pollfunction
> >>> first), how is current code working ?
> >>> Should current code fail if the poll function is not attached in time ?
> >>> Or there is a race between triggered data and the attachment of the
> >>> pollfunc ?
> >>>
> >>> I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it work because
> >>> the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the pollfunc
> >>> attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is not started)
> >>> ,
> >>> can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc polling but no
> >>> trigger started/no DMA started.
> >>
> >> I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using postenable
> >> first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also enable the
> >> trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
> >> Is this the desired effect ?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> How is this correct ? We start the trigger but have no buffer to carry 
> to... what happens with the data ? -> I think we both have an answer to 
> that, as you state below
> 
> > 
> >> Normally when using DMA I would say we
> >> would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and coherent
> >> area etc.) and then enable the trigger.
> > 
> > So, there is a change in our tree [from some time ago].
> > See here:
> > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8
> > 
> > Particularly, what's interesting is around line:
> > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8#diff-0a87744ce945d2c1c89ea19f21fb35bbR722
> > And you may need to expand some stuff to see more of the function-body.
> > And some things may have changed in upstream IIO since that change.
> > 
> > The change is to make the pollfunc attach/detach become part of the IIO
> > framework, because plenty of drivers just call
> > iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() & iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() to
> > manually attach/detach the pollfunc for triggered buffers.
> 
> Okay, I understand this. at91-sama5d2_adc does not manually 
> attach/detach the pollfunc. So why do we need to change anything here ?
> 
> 
> > 
> > That change is from 2015, and since then, some drivers were added that just
> > manually attach/detach the pollfunc [and do nothing more with the
> > postenable/predisable hooks].
> > 
> > I tried to upstream a more complete version of that patch a while ago [u1].
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/
> > 
> > The conclusion was to first fix the attach/detach pollfunc order in all IIO
> > drivers, so that when patch [u1] is applied, there is no more discussion
> > about the correct order for attach/detach pollfunc.
> 
> Allright, what is required to be fixed regarding the order, in this 
> specific case? We enable the DMA, and then we do the normal 'postenable' 
> that was called anyway if we did not override the 'postenable' in the 
> ops. Do you want to move this code to 'preenable' and keep 'postenable' 
> to the standard subsystem one ?
> 
> The same applies to the predisable, we first call the subsystem 
> 'predisable' then do the specific at91 stuff. You want to move this to 
> the 'postdisable' ?
> 
> I think reverting the order inside the functions themselves is not good 
> as we replace the order of starting trigger/DMA setup.
> So, coming to your question below...
> 
> > 
> > Coming back here [and to your question], my answer is: I don't know if the
> > at91 DMA needs to be enabled/disabled before/after the pollfunc
> > attach/detach.
> > This sounds like specific stuff for at91 [which is fine].
> > 
> > It could be that some other hooks may need to used to enable DMA
> > before/after the attach/detach pollfunc. Maybe preenable()/postdisable() ?
> > 
> > In any case, what I would like [with this discussion], is to resolve a
> > situation where we can get closer to moving the attach/pollfunc code to IIO
> > core. So, if AT91 requires a different ordering, I think you would be more
> > appropriate to tell me, and propose an alternative to this patch.
> 
> ... yes, this looks more appropriate, to move things to 
> 'preenable/postdisable', if you feel like 'postenable/predisable' is not 
> the proper place to put them.
> But the order itself, first enable DMA then trigger, and disable in 
> reverse order, I do not think there is anything wrong with that? Am I 
> misunderstanding ?
> 
> If Jonathan or Ludovic have a different idea, please let me know.
> 

I didn't chime in because I am not sure that I really get the issue. I see
the order of the sequence which enables the DMA first and for me it's safe
in this way and I also have doubt it works well if DMA is enabled after
but I didn't do the test.

Regards

Ludovic

> Also, I can test your patch to see if everything is fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eugen
> 
> > 
> > Thanks :)
> > Alex
> > 
> >>
> >>>>> For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also need to
> >>>>> take
> >>>>> into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be put in
> >>>>> places
> >>>>> that avoid the code for that cares about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ping here
> >>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>     drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> >>>>>     1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> >>>>> b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
> >>>>> sama5d2_adc.c
> >>>>> index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> >>>>> @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
> >>>>> iio_dev *indio_dev)
> >>>>>          if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> >>>>>                  return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> >>>>> +     if (ret)
> >>>>> +             return ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>>          /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
> >>>>>          ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
> >>>>>          if (ret) {
> >>>>>                  dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer postenable
> >>>>> failed\n");
> >>>>> +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> >>>>>                  return ret;
> >>>>>          }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -     return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> >>>>> +     return 0;
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> >>>>>     {
> >>>>>          struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >>>>> -     int ret;
> >>>>>          u8 bit;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or the
> >>>>> touchscreen */
> >>>>> @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> >>>>> iio_dev
> >>>>> *indio_dev)
> >>>>>          if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> >>>>>                  return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
> >>>>> -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> >>>>> -     if (ret < 0)
> >>>>> -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable
> >>>>> failed\n");
> >>>>> -
> >>>>>          if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
> >>>>> -             return ret;
> >>>>> +             goto out;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          /* if we are using DMA we must clear registers and end DMA
> >>>>> */
> >>>>>          dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
> >>>>> @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> >>>>> iio_dev
> >>>>> *indio_dev)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          /* read overflow register to clear possible overflow status
> >>>>> */
> >>>>>          at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
> >>>>> -     return ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +out:
> >>>
> >>> I would prefer if this label is named with a function name prefix,
> >>> otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with other things in
> >>> the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if code
> >>> changes.
> >>>
> > 
> > Sure.
> > Will do that.
> > 
> > I did not bother much with these labels, because after applying [u1], some
> > of them [maybe all] should go away.
> > 
> > 
> >>> Thanks for the patch,
> >>> Eugen
> >>>
> >>>>> +     return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops at91_buffer_setup_ops =
> >>>>> {
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> >>>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> >>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> >>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Ludovic Desroches]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 01:40:34PM +0000, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 12:17 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> >
> > On 03.12.2019 14:04, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 09:49 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> > > > [External]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29.11.2019 09:02, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:19 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the late reply.
> > > > > I'm also juggling a few things.
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions
> > > > > > > > > attach/detach
> > > > > > > > > poll functions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called
> > > > > > > > > first to
> > > > > > > > > attach
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > poll function, and then the driver can init the data to be
> > > > > > > > > triggered.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be
> > > > > > > > > called
> > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll
> > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > detached.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Alexandru,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for this late reply,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
> > > > > > > predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing standard
> > > > > > > callback
> > > > > > > with my own, and have my specific at91 code before postenable
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > calling the subsystem postenable,
> > > > > > > and in similar way, for predisable, first call the subsystem
> > > > > > > predisable
> > > > > > > then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in
> > > > > > > postenable)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the
> > > > > > > pollfunction
> > > > > > > first), how is current code working ?
> > > > > > > Should current code fail if the poll function is not attached
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > time ?
> > > > > > > Or there is a race between triggered data and the attachment of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > pollfunc ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it work
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the
> > > > > > > pollfunc
> > > > > > > attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is not
> > > > > > > started)
> > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc
> > > > > > > polling
> > > > > > > but no
> > > > > > > trigger started/no DMA started.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using
> > > > > > postenable
> > > > > > first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also
> > > > > > enable
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
> > > > > > Is this the desired effect ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > How is this correct ? We start the trigger but have no buffer to
> > > > carry
> > > > to... what happens with the data ? -> I think we both have an answer
> > > > to
> > > > that, as you state below
> > > >
> > > > > > Normally when using DMA I would say we
> > > > > > would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and
> > > > > > coherent
> > > > > > area etc.) and then enable the trigger.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, there is a change in our tree [from some time ago].
> > > > > See here:
> > > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8
> > > > >
> > > > > Particularly, what's interesting is around line:
> > > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8#diff-0a87744ce945d2c1c89ea19f21fb35bbR722
> > > > > And you may need to expand some stuff to see more of the function-
> > > > > body.
> > > > > And some things may have changed in upstream IIO since that change.
> > > > >
> > > > > The change is to make the pollfunc attach/detach become part of the
> > > > > IIO
> > > > > framework, because plenty of drivers just call
> > > > > iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() &
> > > > > iio_triggered_buffer_predisable()
> > > > > to
> > > > > manually attach/detach the pollfunc for triggered buffers.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I understand this. at91-sama5d2_adc does not manually
> > > > attach/detach the pollfunc. So why do we need to change anything here
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > That change is from 2015, and since then, some drivers were added
> > > > > that
> > > > > just
> > > > > manually attach/detach the pollfunc [and do nothing more with the
> > > > > postenable/predisable hooks].
> > > > >
> > > > > I tried to upstream a more complete version of that patch a while
> > > > > ago
> > > > > [u1].
> > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
> > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/
> > > > >
> > > > > The conclusion was to first fix the attach/detach pollfunc order in
> > > > > all
> > > > > IIO
> > > > > drivers, so that when patch [u1] is applied, there is no more
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > about the correct order for attach/detach pollfunc.
> > > >
> > > > Allright, what is required to be fixed regarding the order, in this
> > > > specific case? We enable the DMA, and then we do the normal
> > > > 'postenable'
> > > > that was called anyway if we did not override the 'postenable' in the
> > > > ops. Do you want to move this code to 'preenable' and keep
> > > > 'postenable'
> > > > to the standard subsystem one ?
> > > >
> > > > The same applies to the predisable, we first call the subsystem
> > > > 'predisable' then do the specific at91 stuff. You want to move this
> > > > to
> > > > the 'postdisable' ?
> > > >
> > > > I think reverting the order inside the functions themselves is not
> > > > good
> > > > as we replace the order of starting trigger/DMA setup.
> > > > So, coming to your question below...
> > > >
> > > > > Coming back here [and to your question], my answer is: I don't know
> > > > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > at91 DMA needs to be enabled/disabled before/after the pollfunc
> > > > > attach/detach.
> > > > > This sounds like specific stuff for at91 [which is fine].
> > > > >
> > > > > It could be that some other hooks may need to used to enable DMA
> > > > > before/after the attach/detach pollfunc. Maybe
> > > > > preenable()/postdisable() ?
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, what I would like [with this discussion], is to
> > > > > resolve a
> > > > > situation where we can get closer to moving the attach/pollfunc
> > > > > code to
> > > > > IIO
> > > > > core. So, if AT91 requires a different ordering, I think you would
> > > > > be
> > > > > more
> > > > > appropriate to tell me, and propose an alternative to this patch.
> > > >
> > > > ... yes, this looks more appropriate, to move things to
> > > > 'preenable/postdisable', if you feel like 'postenable/predisable' is
> > > > not
> > > > the proper place to put them.
> > > > But the order itself, first enable DMA then trigger, and disable in
> > > > reverse order, I do not think there is anything wrong with that? Am I
> > > > misunderstanding ?
> > >
> > > Should be good.
> > >
> > > > If Jonathan or Ludovic have a different idea, please let me know.
> > >
> > > There is an alternative here [to this].
> > > Maybe using the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration that Lars wrote [1].
> > > This would avoid calling dmaengine_terminate_sync() and similar hooks
> > > in
> > > the AT91 driver. That also preserves the correct order (start DMA
> > > first,
> > > then attach pollfunc ; and reverse on disable).
> > > But that is more work; not on the patch itself, but more on the
> > > testing.
> >
> > Initially, when I implemented the DMA part for this driver, this was the
> > idea. However the DMA engine was not used at that time by anyone , and I
> > could not make it work properly. Jonathan advised at that moment to use
> > this current framework.
> >
> > > [1] Upstreaming more parts for the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration
> > > is on
> > > my to-do-list as well. I think there are still some patches that we
> > > use,
> > > but are not upstreamed yet.
> > >
> > > I'll come-up a with a V2 for this with preenable()/postdisable()
> > > alternative here.
> >
> > Ok, I will test it .
> >
> > What I do not understand completely is why it bothers you to have at91
> > specific code in postenable / predisable.
> > The same thing will happen will happen with preenable/postdisable:
> > specific at91 code will be called after subsystem preenable and before
> > subsystem postdisable.
> 
> Because I am preparing a framework change to IIO core and all IIO drivers
> in mainline need to be resolved when that change happens.
> I am not sure if the change will break any driver, but at least we can
> minimalize breakage.
> 

Ok re-reading the thread I see what you want to achieve. It should be better to
have your framework change (code factorization if I have well understood) in the
patch serie or as an RFC:
- it helps people to understand why you do these changes
- if it's rejected or has to be rework, you have uselessly change the
  drivers and introduce a potential breakage.

If it has already been discussed on the mailing list, forget what I am
saying.

Regards

Ludovic

> >
> > > Thanks
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > > Also, I can test your patch to see if everything is fine.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Eugen
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks :)
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are also
> > > > > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need to be
> > > > > > > > > put
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > places
> > > > > > > > > that avoid the code for that cares about it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ping here
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <
> > > > > > > > > alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >      drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19 ++++++++++--
> > > > > > > > > -------
> > > > > > > > >      1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
> > > > > > > > > sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
> > > > > > > > > iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > >           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > > > > >                   return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > +     if (ret)
> > > > > > > > > +             return ret;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > >           /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > > > >           ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > >           if (ret) {
> > > > > > > > >                   dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer
> > > > > > > > > postenable
> > > > > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > > > > +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > >                   return ret;
> > > > > > > > >           }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -     return iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > +     return 0;
> > > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >      static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev
> > > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > >      {
> > > > > > > > >           struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > -     int ret;
> > > > > > > > >           u8 bit;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >           /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > touchscreen */
> > > > > > > > > @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > >           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > > > > >                   return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > > > > -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > -     if (ret < 0)
> > > > > > > > > -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer predisable
> > > > > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >           if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
> > > > > > > > > -             return ret;
> > > > > > > > > +             goto out;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >           /* if we are using DMA we must clear registers
> > > > > > > > > and end
> > > > > > > > > DMA
> > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > >           dmaengine_terminate_sync(st->dma_st.dma_chan);
> > > > > > > > > @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >           /* read overflow register to clear possible
> > > > > > > > > overflow
> > > > > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > >           at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
> > > > > > > > > -     return ret;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +out:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would prefer if this label is named with a function name
> > > > > > > prefix,
> > > > > > > otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with other
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if code
> > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure.
> > > > > Will do that.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did not bother much with these labels, because after applying
> > > > > [u1],
> > > > > some
> > > > > of them [maybe all] should go away.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the patch,
> > > > > > > Eugen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +     return iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >      static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops
> > > > > > > > > at91_buffer_setup_ops =
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > >
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Ardelean, Alexandru]

On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 09:45 +0100, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 01:40:34PM +0000, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
> > the content is safe
> > 
> > On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 12:17 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> > > On 03.12.2019 14:04, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 09:49 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > [External]
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 29.11.2019 09:02, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:19 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hey,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sorry for the late reply.
> > > > > > I'm also juggling a few things.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable}
> > > > > > > > > > functions
> > > > > > > > > > attach/detach
> > > > > > > > > > poll functions.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called
> > > > > > > > > > first to
> > > > > > > > > > attach
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > poll function, and then the driver can init the data to
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > triggered.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be
> > > > > > > > > > called
> > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll
> > > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > detached.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Hi Alexandru,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Sorry for this late reply,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
> > > > > > > > predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing
> > > > > > > > standard
> > > > > > > > callback
> > > > > > > > with my own, and have my specific at91 code before
> > > > > > > > postenable
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > calling the subsystem postenable,
> > > > > > > > and in similar way, for predisable, first call the
> > > > > > > > subsystem
> > > > > > > > predisable
> > > > > > > > then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in
> > > > > > > > postenable)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the
> > > > > > > > pollfunction
> > > > > > > > first), how is current code working ?
> > > > > > > > Should current code fail if the poll function is not
> > > > > > > > attached
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > time ?
> > > > > > > > Or there is a race between triggered data and the
> > > > > > > > attachment of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > pollfunc ?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the
> > > > > > > > pollfunc
> > > > > > > > attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > started)
> > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc
> > > > > > > > polling
> > > > > > > > but no
> > > > > > > > trigger started/no DMA started.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using
> > > > > > > postenable
> > > > > > > first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also
> > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
> > > > > > > Is this the desired effect ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > How is this correct ? We start the trigger but have no buffer to
> > > > > carry
> > > > > to... what happens with the data ? -> I think we both have an
> > > > > answer
> > > > > to
> > > > > that, as you state below
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Normally when using DMA I would say we
> > > > > > > would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and
> > > > > > > coherent
> > > > > > > area etc.) and then enable the trigger.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So, there is a change in our tree [from some time ago].
> > > > > > See here:
> > > > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Particularly, what's interesting is around line:
> > > > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8#diff-0a87744ce945d2c1c89ea19f21fb35bbR722
> > > > > > And you may need to expand some stuff to see more of the
> > > > > > function-
> > > > > > body.
> > > > > > And some things may have changed in upstream IIO since that
> > > > > > change.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The change is to make the pollfunc attach/detach become part of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > IIO
> > > > > > framework, because plenty of drivers just call
> > > > > > iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() &
> > > > > > iio_triggered_buffer_predisable()
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > manually attach/detach the pollfunc for triggered buffers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Okay, I understand this. at91-sama5d2_adc does not manually
> > > > > attach/detach the pollfunc. So why do we need to change anything
> > > > > here
> > > > > ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > That change is from 2015, and since then, some drivers were
> > > > > > added
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > manually attach/detach the pollfunc [and do nothing more with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > postenable/predisable hooks].
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I tried to upstream a more complete version of that patch a
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > ago
> > > > > > [u1].
> > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
> > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The conclusion was to first fix the attach/detach pollfunc
> > > > > > order in
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > IIO
> > > > > > drivers, so that when patch [u1] is applied, there is no more
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > about the correct order for attach/detach pollfunc.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Allright, what is required to be fixed regarding the order, in
> > > > > this
> > > > > specific case? We enable the DMA, and then we do the normal
> > > > > 'postenable'
> > > > > that was called anyway if we did not override the 'postenable' in
> > > > > the
> > > > > ops. Do you want to move this code to 'preenable' and keep
> > > > > 'postenable'
> > > > > to the standard subsystem one ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The same applies to the predisable, we first call the subsystem
> > > > > 'predisable' then do the specific at91 stuff. You want to move
> > > > > this
> > > > > to
> > > > > the 'postdisable' ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think reverting the order inside the functions themselves is
> > > > > not
> > > > > good
> > > > > as we replace the order of starting trigger/DMA setup.
> > > > > So, coming to your question below...
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Coming back here [and to your question], my answer is: I don't
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > at91 DMA needs to be enabled/disabled before/after the pollfunc
> > > > > > attach/detach.
> > > > > > This sounds like specific stuff for at91 [which is fine].
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It could be that some other hooks may need to used to enable
> > > > > > DMA
> > > > > > before/after the attach/detach pollfunc. Maybe
> > > > > > preenable()/postdisable() ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In any case, what I would like [with this discussion], is to
> > > > > > resolve a
> > > > > > situation where we can get closer to moving the attach/pollfunc
> > > > > > code to
> > > > > > IIO
> > > > > > core. So, if AT91 requires a different ordering, I think you
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > appropriate to tell me, and propose an alternative to this
> > > > > > patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ... yes, this looks more appropriate, to move things to
> > > > > 'preenable/postdisable', if you feel like 'postenable/predisable'
> > > > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > the proper place to put them.
> > > > > But the order itself, first enable DMA then trigger, and disable
> > > > > in
> > > > > reverse order, I do not think there is anything wrong with that?
> > > > > Am I
> > > > > misunderstanding ?
> > > > 
> > > > Should be good.
> > > > 
> > > > > If Jonathan or Ludovic have a different idea, please let me know.
> > > > 
> > > > There is an alternative here [to this].
> > > > Maybe using the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration that Lars wrote
> > > > [1].
> > > > This would avoid calling dmaengine_terminate_sync() and similar
> > > > hooks
> > > > in
> > > > the AT91 driver. That also preserves the correct order (start DMA
> > > > first,
> > > > then attach pollfunc ; and reverse on disable).
> > > > But that is more work; not on the patch itself, but more on the
> > > > testing.
> > > 
> > > Initially, when I implemented the DMA part for this driver, this was
> > > the
> > > idea. However the DMA engine was not used at that time by anyone ,
> > > and I
> > > could not make it work properly. Jonathan advised at that moment to
> > > use
> > > this current framework.
> > > 
> > > > [1] Upstreaming more parts for the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine]
> > > > integration
> > > > is on
> > > > my to-do-list as well. I think there are still some patches that we
> > > > use,
> > > > but are not upstreamed yet.
> > > > 
> > > > I'll come-up a with a V2 for this with preenable()/postdisable()
> > > > alternative here.
> > > 
> > > Ok, I will test it .
> > > 
> > > What I do not understand completely is why it bothers you to have
> > > at91
> > > specific code in postenable / predisable.
> > > The same thing will happen will happen with preenable/postdisable:
> > > specific at91 code will be called after subsystem preenable and
> > > before
> > > subsystem postdisable.
> > 
> > Because I am preparing a framework change to IIO core and all IIO
> > drivers
> > in mainline need to be resolved when that change happens.
> > I am not sure if the change will break any driver, but at least we can
> > minimalize breakage.
> > 
> 
> Ok re-reading the thread I see what you want to achieve. It should be
> better to
> have your framework change (code factorization if I have well understood)
> in the
> patch serie or as an RFC:
> - it helps people to understand why you do these changes
> - if it's rejected or has to be rework, you have uselessly change the
>   drivers and introduce a potential breakage.
> 
> If it has already been discussed on the mailing list, forget what I am
> saying.

It was discussed [well, somewhat; not a lot of people replied to it
initially].

RFC was 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/

Then a follow-up:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/


I don't mind re-discussing it :)

Thanks
Alex

> 
> Regards
> 
> Ludovic
> 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Alex
> > > > 
> > > > > Also, I can test your patch to see if everything is fine.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Eugen
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks :)
> > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need
> > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > put
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > places
> > > > > > > > > > that avoid the code for that cares about it.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ping here
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <
> > > > > > > > > > alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > >      drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19
> > > > > > > > > > ++++++++++--
> > > > > > > > > > -------
> > > > > > > > > >      1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > > b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
> > > > > > > > > > sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > > index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
> > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
> > > > > > > > > > iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > > >           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > > > > > >                   return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > +     if (ret)
> > > > > > > > > > +             return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > >           /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > > > > >           ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > >           if (ret) {
> > > > > > > > > >                   dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer
> > > > > > > > > > postenable
> > > > > > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > > > > > +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev
> > > > > > > > > > );
> > > > > > > > > >                   return ret;
> > > > > > > > > >           }
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > -     return
> > > > > > > > > > iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > +     return 0;
> > > > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >      static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > > >      {
> > > > > > > > > >           struct at91_adc_state *st =
> > > > > > > > > > iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > -     int ret;
> > > > > > > > > >           u8 bit;
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >           /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > touchscreen */
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > > >           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > > > > > >                   return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > > > > > -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > -     if (ret < 0)
> > > > > > > > > > -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer
> > > > > > > > > > predisable
> > > > > > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > >           if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
> > > > > > > > > > -             return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > +             goto out;
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >           /* if we are using DMA we must clear
> > > > > > > > > > registers
> > > > > > > > > > and end
> > > > > > > > > > DMA
> > > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > >           dmaengine_terminate_sync(st-
> > > > > > > > > > >dma_st.dma_chan);
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >           /* read overflow register to clear possible
> > > > > > > > > > overflow
> > > > > > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > >           at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
> > > > > > > > > > -     return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +out:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I would prefer if this label is named with a function name
> > > > > > > > prefix,
> > > > > > > > otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sure.
> > > > > > Will do that.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I did not bother much with these labels, because after applying
> > > > > > [u1],
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > of them [maybe all] should go away.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the patch,
> > > > > > > > Eugen
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > +     return
> > > > > > > > > > iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >      static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops
> > > > > > > > > > at91_buffer_setup_ops =
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > > > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: fix iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} positions

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:06:26 +0000
"Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.Ardelean@analog.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 09:45 +0100, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 01:40:34PM +0000, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:  
> > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
> > > the content is safe
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 12:17 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:  
> > > > On 03.12.2019 14:04, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > >   
> > > > > On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 09:49 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com
> > > > > wrote:  
> > > > > > [External]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 29.11.2019 09:02, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > > > >   
> > > > > > > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:19 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hey,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sorry for the late reply.
> > > > > > > I'm also juggling a few things.
> > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > On 28.11.2019 10:36, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > On 25.11.2019 17:03, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:  
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 11:25 +0300, Alexandru Ardelean
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:  
> > > > > > > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable}
> > > > > > > > > > > functions
> > > > > > > > > > > attach/detach
> > > > > > > > > > > poll functions.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > The iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() should be called
> > > > > > > > > > > first to
> > > > > > > > > > > attach
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > poll function, and then the driver can init the data to
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > triggered.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Similarly, iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be
> > > > > > > > > > > called
> > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > disable the data (to be triggered) and then the poll
> > > > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > detached.  
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hi Alexandru,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Sorry for this late reply,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I remember that by adding specific at91_adc code for
> > > > > > > > > predisable/postenable , I was replacing the existing
> > > > > > > > > standard
> > > > > > > > > callback
> > > > > > > > > with my own, and have my specific at91 code before
> > > > > > > > > postenable
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > calling the subsystem postenable,
> > > > > > > > > and in similar way, for predisable, first call the
> > > > > > > > > subsystem
> > > > > > > > > predisable
> > > > > > > > > then doing my predisable code (in reverse order as in
> > > > > > > > > postenable)
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > If you say the order should be reversed (basically have the
> > > > > > > > > pollfunction
> > > > > > > > > first), how is current code working ?
> > > > > > > > > Should current code fail if the poll function is not
> > > > > > > > > attached
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > time ?
> > > > > > > > > Or there is a race between triggered data and the
> > > > > > > > > attachment of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > pollfunc ?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I am thinking that attaching the pollfunc later makes it
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > the DMA is not started yet. What happens if we have the
> > > > > > > > > pollfunc
> > > > > > > > > attached but DMA is not started (basically the trigger is
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > started)
> > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > can this lead to unexpected behavior ? Like the pollfunc
> > > > > > > > > polling
> > > > > > > > > but no
> > > > > > > > > trigger started/no DMA started.  
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I looked a bit more into the code and in DMA case, using
> > > > > > > > postenable
> > > > > > > > first will lead to calling attach pollfunc, which will also
> > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > trigger, but the DMA is not yet started.
> > > > > > > > Is this the desired effect ?  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yes.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How is this correct ? We start the trigger but have no buffer to
> > > > > > carry
> > > > > > to... what happens with the data ? -> I think we both have an
> > > > > > answer
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > that, as you state below
> > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > Normally when using DMA I would say we
> > > > > > > > would need to enable DMA first to be ready to carry data (and
> > > > > > > > coherent
> > > > > > > > area etc.) and then enable the trigger.  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So, there is a change in our tree [from some time ago].
> > > > > > > See here:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Particularly, what's interesting is around line:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/commit/eee97d12665fef8cf429a1e5035b23ae969705b8#diff-0a87744ce945d2c1c89ea19f21fb35bbR722
> > > > > > > And you may need to expand some stuff to see more of the
> > > > > > > function-
> > > > > > > body.
> > > > > > > And some things may have changed in upstream IIO since that
> > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The change is to make the pollfunc attach/detach become part of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > IIO
> > > > > > > framework, because plenty of drivers just call
> > > > > > > iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() &
> > > > > > > iio_triggered_buffer_predisable()
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > manually attach/detach the pollfunc for triggered buffers.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Okay, I understand this. at91-sama5d2_adc does not manually
> > > > > > attach/detach the pollfunc. So why do we need to change anything
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   
> > > > > > > That change is from 2015, and since then, some drivers were
> > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > manually attach/detach the pollfunc [and do nothing more with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > postenable/predisable hooks].
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I tried to upstream a more complete version of that patch a
> > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > ago
> > > > > > > [u1].
> > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
> > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The conclusion was to first fix the attach/detach pollfunc
> > > > > > > order in
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > IIO
> > > > > > > drivers, so that when patch [u1] is applied, there is no more
> > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > about the correct order for attach/detach pollfunc.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Allright, what is required to be fixed regarding the order, in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > specific case? We enable the DMA, and then we do the normal
> > > > > > 'postenable'
> > > > > > that was called anyway if we did not override the 'postenable' in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > ops. Do you want to move this code to 'preenable' and keep
> > > > > > 'postenable'
> > > > > > to the standard subsystem one ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The same applies to the predisable, we first call the subsystem
> > > > > > 'predisable' then do the specific at91 stuff. You want to move
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the 'postdisable' ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think reverting the order inside the functions themselves is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > as we replace the order of starting trigger/DMA setup.
> > > > > > So, coming to your question below...
> > > > > >   
> > > > > > > Coming back here [and to your question], my answer is: I don't
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > at91 DMA needs to be enabled/disabled before/after the pollfunc
> > > > > > > attach/detach.
> > > > > > > This sounds like specific stuff for at91 [which is fine].
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It could be that some other hooks may need to used to enable
> > > > > > > DMA
> > > > > > > before/after the attach/detach pollfunc. Maybe
> > > > > > > preenable()/postdisable() ?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In any case, what I would like [with this discussion], is to
> > > > > > > resolve a
> > > > > > > situation where we can get closer to moving the attach/pollfunc
> > > > > > > code to
> > > > > > > IIO
> > > > > > > core. So, if AT91 requires a different ordering, I think you
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > appropriate to tell me, and propose an alternative to this
> > > > > > > patch.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ... yes, this looks more appropriate, to move things to
> > > > > > 'preenable/postdisable', if you feel like 'postenable/predisable'
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > the proper place to put them.
> > > > > > But the order itself, first enable DMA then trigger, and disable
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > reverse order, I do not think there is anything wrong with that?
> > > > > > Am I
> > > > > > misunderstanding ?  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Should be good.
> > > > >   
> > > > > > If Jonathan or Ludovic have a different idea, please let me know.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is an alternative here [to this].
> > > > > Maybe using the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine] integration that Lars wrote
> > > > > [1].
> > > > > This would avoid calling dmaengine_terminate_sync() and similar
> > > > > hooks
> > > > > in
> > > > > the AT91 driver. That also preserves the correct order (start DMA
> > > > > first,
> > > > > then attach pollfunc ; and reverse on disable).
> > > > > But that is more work; not on the patch itself, but more on the
> > > > > testing.  
> > > > 
> > > > Initially, when I implemented the DMA part for this driver, this was
> > > > the
> > > > idea. However the DMA engine was not used at that time by anyone ,
> > > > and I
> > > > could not make it work properly. Jonathan advised at that moment to
> > > > use
> > > > this current framework.
> > > >   
> > > > > [1] Upstreaming more parts for the IIO Buffer DMA[Engine]
> > > > > integration
> > > > > is on
> > > > > my to-do-list as well. I think there are still some patches that we
> > > > > use,
> > > > > but are not upstreamed yet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'll come-up a with a V2 for this with preenable()/postdisable()
> > > > > alternative here.  
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, I will test it .
> > > > 
> > > > What I do not understand completely is why it bothers you to have
> > > > at91
> > > > specific code in postenable / predisable.
> > > > The same thing will happen will happen with preenable/postdisable:
> > > > specific at91 code will be called after subsystem preenable and
> > > > before
> > > > subsystem postdisable.  
> > > 
> > > Because I am preparing a framework change to IIO core and all IIO
> > > drivers
> > > in mainline need to be resolved when that change happens.
> > > I am not sure if the change will break any driver, but at least we can
> > > minimalize breakage.
> > >   
> > 
> > Ok re-reading the thread I see what you want to achieve. It should be
> > better to
> > have your framework change (code factorization if I have well understood)
> > in the
> > patch serie or as an RFC:
> > - it helps people to understand why you do these changes
> > - if it's rejected or has to be rework, you have uselessly change the
> >   drivers and introduce a potential breakage.
> > 
> > If it has already been discussed on the mailing list, forget what I am
> > saying.  
> 
> It was discussed [well, somewhat; not a lot of people replied to it
> initially].
> 
> RFC was 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482167/
> 
> Then a follow-up:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10737291/
> 
> 
> I don't mind re-discussing it :)

It was a while back and I'm guessing we are down to the last few 'hard'
drivers like this one.  Hence probably worth a repost.

The very rough argument is that attaching the pollfunc is really not a driver
specific thing so should be in the core.  It naturally fits at the point just
before postenable as it's the real enable (previously we were just
using the flag setting as the point of enablement).

So hopefully simplifies the model somewhat.

I asked Alex to do the precursor to the reorg separately as there was simply
too much to discuss in the original patch as it made functional changes
(such as this one!)

Definitely worth a back reference in the patch descriptions though so
the history is there.

Jonathan

> 
> Thanks
> Alex
> 
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Ludovic
> >   
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >   
> > > > > > Also, I can test your patch to see if everything is fine.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Eugen
> > > > > >   
> > > > > > > Thanks :)
> > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > For this driver, the predisable & postenable hooks are
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > > into consideration the touchscreen, so the hooks need
> > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > put
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > places
> > > > > > > > > > > that avoid the code for that cares about it.
> > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > ping here
> > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <  
> > > > > > > > > > > alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>  
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > >      drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 19
> > > > > > > > > > > ++++++++++--
> > > > > > > > > > > -------
> > > > > > > > > > >      1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > > > b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-
> > > > > > > > > > > sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > > > index e1850f3d5cf3..ac3e5c4c9840 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -889,20 +889,24 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct
> > > > > > > > > > > iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > > > >           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > > > > > > >                   return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > +     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > > +     if (ret)
> > > > > > > > > > > +             return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > >           /* we continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > > > > > >           ret = at91_adc_dma_start(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > >           if (ret) {
> > > > > > > > > > >                   dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer
> > > > > > > > > > > postenable
> > > > > > > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > > > > > > +             iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev
> > > > > > > > > > > );
> > > > > > > > > > >                   return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > >           }
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > -     return
> > > > > > > > > > > iio_triggered_buffer_postenable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > > +     return 0;
> > > > > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >      static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > > > >      {
> > > > > > > > > > >           struct at91_adc_state *st =
> > > > > > > > > > > iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > > -     int ret;
> > > > > > > > > > >           u8 bit;
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >           /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > touchscreen */
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -916,13 +920,8 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > > > >           if (!(indio_dev->currentmode &
> > > > > > > > > > > INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> > > > > > > > > > >                   return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > -     /* continue with the triggered buffer */
> > > > > > > > > > > -     ret = iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > > -     if (ret < 0)
> > > > > > > > > > > -             dev_err(&indio_dev->dev, "buffer
> > > > > > > > > > > predisable
> > > > > > > > > > > failed\n");
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > >           if (!st->dma_st.dma_chan)
> > > > > > > > > > > -             return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > +             goto out;
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >           /* if we are using DMA we must clear
> > > > > > > > > > > registers
> > > > > > > > > > > and end
> > > > > > > > > > > DMA
> > > > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > > >           dmaengine_terminate_sync(st-  
> > > > > > > > > > > >dma_st.dma_chan);  
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -949,7 +948,9 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > > > > at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct
> > > > > > > > > > > iio_dev
> > > > > > > > > > > *indio_dev)
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >           /* read overflow register to clear possible
> > > > > > > > > > > overflow
> > > > > > > > > > > status
> > > > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > > >           at91_adc_readl(st, AT91_SAMA5D2_OVER);
> > > > > > > > > > > -     return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +out:  
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I would prefer if this label is named with a function name
> > > > > > > > > prefix,
> > > > > > > > > otherwise 'out' is pretty generic and can collide with
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the file... I want to avoid having an out2 , out3 later if
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sure.
> > > > > > > Will do that.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I did not bother much with these labels, because after applying
> > > > > > > [u1],
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > of them [maybe all] should go away.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the patch,
> > > > > > > > > Eugen
> > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > +     return
> > > > > > > > > > > iio_triggered_buffer_predisable(indio_dev);
> > > > > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >      static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops
> > > > > > > > > > > at91_buffer_setup_ops =
> > > > > > > > > > > {  
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > > > > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > > > > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > > > > > >   
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel  


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel