From: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com>
To: Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com>
Cc: "discussions@linuxpps.org" <discussions@linuxpps.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Koen Vandeputte <koen.vandeputte@ncentric.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pps-gpio: use IRQ edge config when not capturing both edges
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:22:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <627ec6a7-2b7a-a59b-7eb8-b9645e34d796@enneenne.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+vNU2NAjquPKKxx3xJtZqWiE=CZi5qCSEDu6dua1M0g9Ldjg@mail.gmail.com>
On 12/09/2017 17:54, Tim Harvey wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com> wrote:
>> On 08/09/2017 21:53, Tim Harvey wrote:
>>>
>>> PPS signals with very short pulse-widths can be missed if their state
>>> changes by the time the interrupt handler reads the GPIO pin state.
>>>
>>> To avoid this in the case where we are only looking for one edge we can
>>> use the edge configuration for the pin state but fall back to reading the
>>> pin if both edges are being watched.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. The "rising_edge" status should be get from the hardware and not
>> derived by an empirical computation. Or, at least, it should be specifically
>> activated by setting something like this:
>>
>> pps {
>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_pps>;
>>
>> gpios = <&gpio1 26 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> Yes-I-want-get-signal-status-in-an-epirical-way;
>>
>> compatible = "pps-gpio";
>> status = "okay";
>> };
>>
>> This setting should also print a warning in order to be clear for the user
>> that he/she should know what he/she is doing.
>>
>> Then the code should check also the compatibility with property
>> "assert-falling-edge"...
>>
>
> Hi Rodolfo,
>
> Do you agree with using the irq edge in general if/when it is
> available to resolve the case where small pulse-widths can be caught?
>
> I assumed because pps-gpio is the one configuring the irq based on
> info->capture_clear and info->assert_falling_edge that that it made
> sense to use that logic again when handling the interrupt but there is
> likely a call I can make to determine the irq (edge) type based on the
> irq.
If you get the information from the hardware it's OK for me, otherwise you
should enable this behavior by using proper DT property.
Ciao,
Rodolfo
--
HCE Engineering e-mail: giometti@hce-engineering.it
GNU/Linux Solutions giometti@enneenne.com
Linux Device Driver giometti@linux.it
Embedded Systems phone: +39 349 2432127
UNIX programming skype: rodolfo.giometti
Cosino Project - the quick prototyping embedded system - www.cosino.it
Freelance ICT Italia - Consulente ICT Italia - www.consulenti-ict.it
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-12 16:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-08 19:53 Tim Harvey
2017-09-10 10:43 ` Rodolfo Giometti
2017-09-12 15:54 ` Tim Harvey
2017-09-12 16:22 ` Rodolfo Giometti [this message]
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=627ec6a7-2b7a-a59b-7eb8-b9645e34d796@enneenne.com \
--to=giometti@enneenne.com \
--cc=discussions@linuxpps.org \
--cc=koen.vandeputte@ncentric.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tharvey@gateworks.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®