Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 5 Oct 2020 14:12:53 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc:     Lars Poeschel <poeschel@lemonage.de>,
        Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        "open list:PWM SUBSYSTEM" <linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: sysfs: Set class on pwm devices
Message-ID: <20201005121253.GA687559@kroah.com>
References: <20200930094146.73s3qzvf5ekjeavc@pengutronix.de>
 <20201001090531.gubfwmznlto2ng6l@lem-wkst-02.lemonage>
 <20201001112449.GA2364834@kroah.com>
 <20201005093016.GD425362@ulmo>
 <20201005094530.GA154185@kroah.com>
 <20201005101721.GL425362@ulmo>
 <20201005104023.GB245520@kroah.com>
 <20201005110819.GP425362@ulmo>
 <20201005111738.GA367715@kroah.com>
 <20201005115819.GU425362@ulmo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20201005115819.GU425362@ulmo>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 01:58:19PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 01:17:38PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 01:08:19PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 12:40:23PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 12:17:21PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:45:30AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:30:16AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 01:24:49PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 11:05:31AM +0200, Lars Poeschel wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:41:46AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I added Greg Kroah-Hartman who I discussed this with via irc a bit to
> > > > > > > > > > Cc:.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:20:56AM +0200, Lars Poeschel wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your review!
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:57:26AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 02:19:53PM +0200, poeschel@lemonage.de wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Lars Poeschel <poeschel@lemonage.de>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This adds a class to exported pwm devices.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Exporting a pwm through sysfs did not yield udev events. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder what is your use-case here. This for sure also has a place to
> > > > > > > > > > > > be mentioned in the commit log. I suspect there is a better way to
> > > > > > > > > > > > accomplish you way.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Use-case is to be able to use a pwm from a non-root userspace process.
> > > > > > > > > > > I use udev rules to adjust permissions.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Hmm, how do you trigger the export? Without being aware of all the
> > > > > > > > > > details in the sysfs code I would expect that the exported stuff is
> > > > > > > > > > available instantly once the write used to export the PWM is completed.
> > > > > > > > > > So changing the permissions can be done directly after triggering the
> > > > > > > > > > export in the same process.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The export is triggered through the userspace process itself. Why can it
> > > > > > > > > do this ? Because there is another udev rule, that changes permissions
> > > > > > > > > when a pwmchip appears.
> > > > > > > > > Then I'd like to have the second udev rule, that changes permissions on
> > > > > > > > > the freshly exported pwm. The userspace process can't do this.
> > > > > > > > > You are right I could propably do everything from within udev: If a
> > > > > > > > > pwmchip appears, export certain pwms and right away change their
> > > > > > > > > permissions. It does not also not feel right. It'd require knowledge
> > > > > > > > > from the userspace application to be mapped to udev.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The way the kernel code is now, yes, you will not have any way to
> > > > > > > > trigger it by userspace as the kernel is creating a "raw" struct device
> > > > > > > > that isn't assigned to anything.  That is what needs to be fixed here.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Out of interest: What do you use the pwm for? Isn't there a suitable
> > > > > > > > > > kernel driver that can do the required stuff? Compared to the kernel-API
> > > > > > > > > > the sysfs interface isn't atomic. Is this an annoyance?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Use-case is generating a voltage from the pwm. This voltage is used to
> > > > > > > > > signal different states and does not change very often. This is
> > > > > > > > > absolutely not annoying that this is not atomic. We just change the duty
> > > > > > > > > cycle on the fly. Everything else is configured one time at startup.
> > > > > > > > > I'd call what I need pwm-dac. I could not find a ready to use driver.
> > > > > > > > > Maybe I could misuse some kernel driver for this. Maybe I could use
> > > > > > > > > pwm-led or pwm-brightness or pwm-fan. Propably pwm-regulator could work,
> > > > > > > > > there is even a userspace facing part for this, but this is not
> > > > > > > > > devicetree ready.
> > > > > > > > > ...and the worst, please don't blame me: The application is java, so
> > > > > > > > > ioctl is a problem.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I thought java could do ioctls, otherwise how would it ever be able to
> > > > > > > > talk to serial ports?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Anyway, this needs to be fixed in the kernel...
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If atomicity was a problem, we could potentially add a mechanism to the
> > > > > > > sysfs interface to enable that. I don't see a good way of doing that in
> > > > > > > a single file, since that works against how sysfs is designed. But one
> > > > > > > thing I could imagine is adding a file ("lock", or whatever you want to
> > > > > > > call it) that you can use for atomic fencing:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 	$ echo 1 > lock # locks the hardware state
> > > > > > > 	$ echo 100 > period
> > > > > > > 	$ echo 50 > duty_cycle
> > > > > > > 	$ echo 0 > lock # flushes state to hardware
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > But it sounds like that's not even a big issue.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That is exactly what configfs was designed for :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Interesting... for some reason I had never thought about configfs in
> > > > > this context. But it does indeed sound like it could solve this problem
> > > > > in a better way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > My memory is a bit sketchy, but I think for USB device controllers this
> > > > > works by exposing each controller in configfs and then configuring
> > > > > things like endpoints within the controller's directory. So I wonder if
> > > > > instead of requesting PWMs via sysfs, we should rather expose them via
> > > > > configfs items.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Something like:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	# mkdir /configfs/7000a000.pwm/0
> > > > > 
> > > > > could then be the equivalent of exporting PWM channel 0 of the given PWM
> > > > > chip in sysfs, except that now you get a configfs directory with
> > > > > attributes that you can use to inspect and reconfigure the PWM channel
> > > > > and ultimately apply the changes atomically.
> > > > > 
> > > > > How does that work from a permissions point of view? How do we ensure
> > > > > that people don't need root privileges to access these?
> > > > 
> > > > To change things in configfs, yes, I'm pretty sure you need root access.
> > > > But to read things, sysfs is fine.  I don't really know what you are
> > > > wanting to do here, both create a device and change the options over
> > > > time?
> > > 
> > > Yes, I'm wondering if we should replace the write usages in sysfs with a
> > > better configfs implementation. We obviously can't remove the existing
> > > sysfs ABI, but for anything that's meant to be atomic we could point
> > > people at the configfs interface.
> > 
> > How about fixing the sysfs interface so that it's usable, like the
> > proposed patch does?  What you all have now is not working.
> > 
> > When the revised version is sent, not this version...
> 
> I'm not sure which patch you're referring to. I don't see anything in my
> inbox. I'll go check the spam, perhaps it's landed there.

See:
	https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201002123048.3073128-1-poeschel@lemonage.de