linux-iio.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Crt Mori <cmo@melexis.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
	linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] iio:temperature:mlx90632: Convert polling while loop to do-while
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:42:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKv63utpidP12iQXWU59=F+cVCq6oShSAitmKhoC4W4aaPtnRA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VfAbufX+jYcxnp8AyAzZ0M42jRCkP5X1sRqXm0jpoyvrQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 11:32, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:33 AM Crt Mori <cmo@melexis.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 21:41, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 4:04 PM Crt Mori <cmo@melexis.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 13:24, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:14 PM Crt Mori <cmo@melexis.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 13:03, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:53 AM Crt Mori <cmo@melexis.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > > I don't see how it prevents using iopoll.h. It uses usleep_range()
> > > > > > > under the hood in the same way you did here, but open coded.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One loop is indeed 10ms and that is not the problem, the problem is
> > > > > > that timeout is at least 3 calls of this data ready (3 channels), so
> > > > > > that is at minimum 30ms of timeout, or it could even be 4 in worse
> > > > > > case scenario and that is outside of the range for usleep to measure.
> > > > > > So in case of the other loop, where we wait 200ms for channel refresh
> > > > > > it is also out of scope. Timeout should be in number of tries or in
> > > > > > msleep range if you ask me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I still didn't buy it. You have in both cases usleep_range(). Why in
> > > > > your case it's okay and in regmap_read_poll_timeout() is not?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I tried and it did not work, so then I read the manual. Looking into
> > > >
> > > > * regmap_read_poll_timeout_atomic - Poll until a condition is met or a
> > > > timeout occurs
> > >
> > > Why _atomic?!
> >
> > I just pasted something, it is the same as for non _atomic
>
> OK.
>
> ...
>
> > > >  * @delay_us: Time to udelay between reads in us (0 tight-loops).
> > > >  *            Should be less than ~10us since udelay is used
> > > >  *            (see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst).
> > > >  * @timeout_us: Timeout in us, 0 means never timeout
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > > >                 usleep_range(10000, 11000);
> > >
> > > You use here usleep_range(). The same is used for
> > > regmap_read_poll_timeout(). What's the difference?
> > >
> > > Since it uses 1/4 of the range you probably need to update tries and
> > > timeout_us to make it work.
> > >
> >
> > Timeout_us here needs to be in one case 100 * 10ms (maybe not
> > realistic as we could live with number of around 40 * 10ms), but this
> > is a lot more than proposed range of usleep which Is up to 20ms. Even
> > in best case this timeout should be 40 ms to give enough time to
> > measure 2 channels for sure. So with the current timeout_us
> > requirement we are outside of the range of the udelay timer and that
> > is why I would need a macro with number of tries, not with the timeout
> > value (or timeout value of ms).
>
> I do not understand. The regmap_read_poll_timeout() is a macro which
> unrolls in the very similar loop you have now in the code.
> What prevents it from using it?
>
> I think there is a big misunderstanding about the parameters of that macro.
> delay_us (must be small enough), timeout_us can be any long.
>
I tested on Beaglebone with the 100 * 10000 as timeout_us and I always
got the -ETIMEDOUT error. I also tested in the other case where
delay_us is 250000 and then timeout_us would be 4*250000 and I have
also received -ETIMEDOUT as a response.

I can prepare a patch with the iopoll.h API and maybe you will spot
the mistake, as after rechecking timeout_us is indeed 64bit and is
only used in the time comparison operations and not with timers.

> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

  reply	other threads:[~2020-08-14  9:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-13  7:51 [PATCH v5 0/5] iio: temperature: mlx90632: Add extended calibration calculations Crt Mori
2020-08-13  7:51 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] iio:temperature:mlx90632: Reduce number of equal calulcations Crt Mori
2020-08-13  7:51 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] iio:temperature:mlx90632: Add kerneldoc to the internal struct Crt Mori
2020-08-13 10:54   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-13  7:51 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] iio:temperature:mlx90632: Convert polling while loop to do-while Crt Mori
2020-08-13 11:03   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-13 11:13     ` Crt Mori
2020-08-13 11:24       ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-13 13:03         ` Crt Mori
2020-08-13 19:40           ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-14  7:32             ` Crt Mori
2020-08-14  9:31               ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-14  9:42                 ` Crt Mori [this message]
2020-08-14 12:11                   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-13  7:51 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] iio:temperature:mlx90632: Adding extended calibration option Crt Mori
2020-08-13 11:06   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-13  7:51 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] iio:temperature:mlx90632: Some stylefixing leftovers Crt Mori
2020-08-13 11:01   ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-13 13:11     ` Crt Mori
2020-08-13 19:41       ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-08-16  8:38         ` Jonathan Cameron

Reply instructions:

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

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

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

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAKv63utpidP12iQXWU59=F+cVCq6oShSAitmKhoC4W4aaPtnRA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=cmo@melexis.com \
    --cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
    --cc=jic23@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] iio:temperature:mlx90632: Convert polling while loop to do-while' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

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

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).