Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-142638-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <6f064bd8-7937-4634-8a39-13ee5bcd6193@bootlin.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:20:25 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] pps: clients: gpio: Bypass edge's direction check
 when not needed
To: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>, herve.codina@bootlin.com,
 christophercordahi@nanometrics.ca
References: <20240410113502.73038-1-bastien.curutchet@bootlin.com>
 <1f7f5b2f-54d4-4dc1-90ff-b896c930faed@enneenne.com>
 <5bda0980-2373-4284-bda4-89f0c6944e76@bootlin.com>
 <eb64ec08-2ae3-48bb-9f84-3cec362280b2@enneenne.com>
 <27196117-32bc-4892-b545-d9cf43a89f0a@bootlin.com>
 <c1e93cfe-371c-4855-9a13-b4b453bb9e88@enneenne.com>
 <28c5456d-535c-4ed9-b13a-fab7f50412be@bootlin.com>
 <9255124b-958e-4ab4-a812-67ad5d36e16d@enneenne.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@bootlin.com>
In-Reply-To: <9255124b-958e-4ab4-a812-67ad5d36e16d@enneenne.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Rodolfo,

On 4/12/24 08:44, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> On 11/04/24 14:44, Bastien Curutchet wrote:
>>>
>>> However we should think very well about this modification since it 
>>> could be the case where we have a device sending both assert and 
>>> clear events but we wish to catch just the asserts... in this case we 
>>> will get doubled asserts!
>>>
>>
>> My understanding is that clear events are to be captured only when this
>> capture_clear boolean is set. If it is not set, the PPS_CAPTURECLEAR
>> flag is not added to pps_source_info->mode and get_irqf_trigger_flags()
>> will return only one edge flag (rising or falling depending on
>> assert-falling-edge DT property).
> 
> Yes. You are right.
> 
>> By the way, I see that the capture_clear is never set since the legacy
>> platform data support has been dropped (commit ee89646619ba).
> 
> I see, but it can be re-enabled in the future... In this scenario, I 
> think we should add a DT entry to enable this special behavior. Maybe we 
> can also add a warning as below: >
> static irqreturn_t pps_gpio_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
> {
>          ...
>          if ((rising_edge && !info->assert_falling_edge) ||
>                          (!rising_edge && info->assert_falling_edge))
>                  pps_event(info->pps, &ts, PPS_CAPTUREASSERT, data);
>          else if (info->capture_clear &&
>                          ((rising_edge && info->assert_falling_edge) ||
>                          (!rising_edge && !info->assert_falling_edge)))
>                  pps_event(info->pps, &ts, PPS_CAPTURECLEAR, data);
>      else
>          dev_warn_ratelimited(dev, "no ASSERT or CAPTURE event? "
>              "Maybe you need support-tiny-assert-pulse?");
> 
>          return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
> 

I'm not sure a DT entry is needed. IMO there are two cases:
  1) capture_clear is unset. We need to capture only assert events,
     interrupt will be triggered by assert edge only so there is no need
     to check GPIO state: we can use the bypass.
  2) capture_clear is set. We need to capture assert and/or clear
     events, interrupt will be triggered by both assert and clear edges
     so we can't avoid the GPIO state checking to distinguish clear
     events from assert events: we can't use the bypass.

So if we bypass the GPIO's state check when capture_clear is unset and
leave current behavior when capture_clear is set:
  - case 1) will be more efficient and we won't lose tiny pulses anymore
  - case 2) is unchanged: we still might lose tiny pulses but as bypass
can't be done here, I think that we can't do better.

I agree that adding warning when the handler is left without triggering
a pps event can be useful, I can add it in a V3 version.


Best regards,
Bastien