On 3/25/23 20:29, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 14:01:55 +0200
> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 3/19/23 20:08, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 16:43:23 +0200
>>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some light sensors can adjust both the HW-gain and integration time.
>>>> There are cases where adjusting the integration time has similar impact
>>>> to the scale of the reported values as gain setting has.
>>>>
>>>> IIO users do typically expect to handle scale by a single writable 'scale'
>>>> entry. Driver should then adjust the gain/time accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> It however is difficult for a driver to know whether it should change
>>>> gain or integration time to meet the requested scale. Usually it is
>>>> preferred to have longer integration time which usually improves
>>>> accuracy, but there may be use-cases where long measurement times can be
>>>> an issue. Thus it can be preferable to allow also changing the
>>>> integration time - but mitigate the scale impact by also changing the gain
>>>> underneath. Eg, if integration time change doubles the measured values,
>>>> the driver can reduce the HW-gain to half.
>>>>
>>>> The theory of the computations of gain-time-scale is simple. However,
>>>> some people (undersigned) got that implemented wrong for more than once.
>>>>
>>>> Add some gain-time-scale helpers in order to not dublicate errors in all
>>>> drivers needing these computations.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Whilst you use it in the tests currently I'm not convinced there is a good
>>> reason to separate iio_init_iio_gts() from devm_iio_gts_build_avail_tables()
>>> as I'd expect them to be called as a pair in all drivers that use this.
>>
>> I was wondering if I should only provide the:
>>
>> [devm_]iio_init_iio_gts() and always unconditionally allocate and build
>> the tables inside the initialization routine.
>>
>> I don't really care so much about how the tests are done. In my opinion
>> the testability needs should rarely be determining what the production
>> code looks like. In this case it is a waste of time / resources for
>> drivers which do not tell the available scales/times to user-space, or
>> do need some special routine for this. This is why I did make
>> build_avail_tables() optional. Still not sure what would be the best
>> approach though.
>
> Given it should be 'easy to do' after you have this infrastructure, why would
> a driver not provide the _available tables?
Pretty much the only thing I can think of is when a HW has some "funny"
limitations regarding available values. Eg, when the device supports
only certain values depending on a seemingly unrelated config X.
In such case the driver might not want to always advertise all the
available values - and in such case the driver could not use the tables.
And as this is probably really unlikely scenario - In v5 I did just put
the table building unconditionally in gts-init as you suggested.
>>> Perhaps it's worth reworking the tests to do that even if it's not strictly
>>> necessary for specific tests.
>>>
>>> I think a bit more care is need with storage of time (unsigned) + decide
>>> whether to allow for negative gains.
>>
>> My approach was just pretty simple "int is big enough for the times"
>> (2000+ seconds when using usec as time units felt like more than enough
>> for light sensors) and "gains are always positive".
>>
>> I have not tested the negative gains at all - but I agree this should've
>> been documented. Currently there is no gts-helper users who need
>> negative gain (or large times for that matter) - so I was not handling them.
>>
>> I'll try to check what it would mean code-wise if we converted times to
>> unsigned. Negative times make no sense but allowing negative error
>> values is a simple way to go.
>>
>> As for the negative gains - I have no problem of someone adding a
>> support for those if needed, but I don't currently see much point in
>> investing time in that...
>
> I'm fine with keeping them all signed, but you probably need some checks
> to ensure the data provided isn't negative.
Yep. I agree. Added the checks to init in v5 :)
>>> Whilst they happen I'm not that bothered
>>> if that subtlety becomes a device driver problem when calling this. I'm not
>>> sure I've seen a sensor that does both positive and negative gains for a single
>>> channel.
>>
>> I agree. If driver needs negative gains, then the driver needs to deal
>> with it. I have no objections if driver authors want to improve these
>> helpers by adding support for negative gains, but if they don't, then
>> they have the exactly same problem they would have without these helpers :)
>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Currently it is only BU27034 using these in this series. I am however working
>>>> with drivers for RGB sensors BU27008 and BU27010 which have similar
>>>> [gain - integration time - scale] - relation. I hope sending those
>>>> follows soon after the BU27034 is done.
>>>>
>>>> Changes:
>>>> v3 => v4:
>>>> - doc styling
>>>> - use memset to zero the helper struct at init
>>>> - drop unnecessary min calculation at iio_find_closest_gain_low()
>>>> - use namespace to all exports
>>>> - many minor stylings
>>>> - make available outside iio/light (move code to drivers/iio and move the
>>>> header under include
>>>> - rename to look like other files under drivers/iio (s/iio/industrialio)
>>>
>>> Ah. I've always regretted not using iio_ for the prefix on those so I'm fine
>>> if you would prefer to stick to iio_
>>
>> I do like iio better. However, I think we should have common prefix for
>> these files. Having both iio- and industrialio- will be confusing for
>> newcomers. If I saw just one iio- prefixed file I would have assumed it
>> is for a specific use, not for common use as the other "IIO-core" files.
>>
>> One option would be converting all these industrialio-*.c files to
>> iio_*.c - but I am not sure if it is worth the hassle.
>
> It gets messy because then you have to fix up the module names. People get
> annoyed if those change.
Ah. Very valid point. I should've seen that.
So, I'll keep the long filename just for the sake of the consistency -
unless you object.
> ...
>
>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * iio_gts_purge_avail_scale_table - free-up the available scale tables
>>>> + * @gts: Gain time scale descriptor
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Free the space reserved by iio_gts_build_avail_scale_table(). Please note
>>>> + * that the helpers for getting available scales like the
>>>> + * iio_gts_all_avail_scales() are not usable after this call. Thus, this should
>>>> + * be only called after these helpers can no longer be called (Eg. after
>>>> + * the iio-device has been deregistered).
>>>
>>> Whilst I'm not that keen on the comment in general, if you really really want to
>>> have it we need to figure out one place to put it rather than lots of duplicates.
>>
>> I have seen way too many bugs with the unwinding errors. Usually with
>> the IRQs but also when user-space has access to driver stuff. I placed
>> this comment here hoping it would prevent at least one such bug as those
>> tend to be really nasty to debug. If we avoid one, it is well worth of
>> few lines of comment (IMO).
>
> I'd argue this particular code doesn't have the subtleties that irqs and stuff
> directly accessed from userspace has (where such comments would sometimes be
> helpful!). Meh I don't care that much.
Hm. I didn't check how IIO handles the user-space request to available
scales/times - but I thought that would go directly to the tables for as
long as the IIO-device stays registered.
In any case, moving the table creation in gts-init made these functions
internal - so I think this piece of doc should go now.
>
>
>>>> +
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * iio_gts_build_avail_scale_table - create tables of available scales
>>>> + * @gts: Gain time scale descriptor
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Build the tables which can represent the available scales based on the
>>>> + * originally given gain and time tables. When both time and gain tables are
>>>> + * given this results:
>>>> + * 1. A set of tables representing available scales for each supported
>>>> + * integration time.
>>>> + * 2. A single table listing all the unique scales that any combination of
>>>> + * supported gains and times can provide.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * NOTE: Space allocated for the tables must be freed using
>>>> + * iio_gts_purge_avail_scale_table() when the tables are no longer needed.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Return: 0 on success.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int iio_gts_build_avail_scale_table(struct iio_gts *gts)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int **per_time_gains, **per_time_scales, i, j, ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> + per_time_gains = kcalloc(gts->num_itime, sizeof(int *), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> As per other thread, I much prefer reviewing code with sizeof(*per_time_gains)
>>> as it requires fewer brain cells.
>>
>> Hm. I think it depends on whether one wants to understand how many bytes
>> the sizeof() is actually referring. Well, again, I guess I have no
>> choice here.
>
> Why would one care? You care about the number of objects, for a kcalloc call
> but the size is rarely useful to have immediately visible.
I think this is just how my mind works. I do like to see not only how
many "items" there is, but also the size of the "items". I guess it
rarely plays a big role, but sometimes it's nice knowing for example how
much memory an array takes (especially in cases where the array is from
the stack, but sometimes also for heap allocations). Furthermore,
occasionally seeing the alignment is nice too.
Yes, yes - this is not relevant here - but this is probably why I prefer
seeing the sizeof(type *) instead of the sizeof(variable) - when the
variable is a pointer.
I think I changed this to sizeof(*per_time_gains) for v5.
>>>> +
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * iio_gts_build_avail_time_table - build table of available integration times
>>>> + * @gts: Gain time scale descriptor
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Build the table which can represent the available times to be returned
>>>> + * to users using the read_avail-callback.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * NOTE: Space allocated for the tables must be freed using
>>>> + * iio_gts_purge_avail_time_table() when the tables are no longer needed.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Return: 0 on success.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int iio_gts_build_avail_time_table(struct iio_gts *gts)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int *times, i, j, idx = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!gts->num_itime)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + times = kcalloc(gts->num_itime, sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> + if (!times)
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = gts->num_itime - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
>>>> + int new = gts->itime_table[i].time_us;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> This looks like a sort routine. Don't we have something generic that will work?
>>
>> I think this is "combine and sort many tables into one while dropping
>> duplicates". I must admit I don't know what sort routines we have
>> in-kernel. If we have one which removes duplicates, then we could
>> probably copy all the tables into one array and run such sort on it.
>>
>> Or then we can leave this as is and add a comment about telling is going
>> on here :)
>
> Perfect.
Now I wonder if I remembered to actually add the comment...
>
>>
>>>
>>>> + if (times[idx] < new) {
>>>> + times[idx++] = new;
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + for (j = 0; j <= idx; j++) {
>>>> + if (times[j] > new) {
>>>> + memmove(×[j + 1], ×[j],
>>>> + (idx - j) * sizeof(int));
>>>> + times[j] = new;
>>>> + idx++;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> + gts->avail_time_tables = times;
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * This is just to survive a unlikely corner-case where times in the
>>>> + * given time table were not unique. Else we could just trust the
>>>> + * gts->num_itime.
>>>
>>> If integration times aren't unique I'd count it as driver bug and error out
>>> /scream. Papering over things like this just make code harder to review
>>> to deal with what is probably a driver bug.
>>
>> I am not entirely sure. I don't know the sensor ICs in details, but I've
>> seen plenty of other ICs where we may have different register values
>> that mean same physical measure. One such example is almost all ROHM
>> PMICs, where we often see voltage selection registers like:
>
>>
>> register val 0 to <foo>:
>> - 1.0V + (val * 10 mV)
>> register val <A> to <MAX>:
>> - 3.3 V
>>
>> If we have similar registers for the time, then it may be good idea to
>> accept selectors A...MAX to have the same time. This allows the
>> gts-helpers to be used to convert the register values to times also for
>> such devices. If we don't allow same times to be in the tables, then
>> there may be unknown but valid register values read from the IC.
>
> That I agree with. Should the driver support more that one such option.
> No it shouldn't. Snarky comments about repeated values are fine ;)
> I'd argue the driver has a bug if it hasn't hammered the device into a
> known state (typically via a documented reset value). We always have
> fun corners where devices will accept reserved values and driver very
> rarely handle reading them back right - because we arrange that they are
> definitely not set by resetting the device.
Hm. I guess the fundamental difference compared to PMICs here is the
ability to reset the device at probe. PMICs can't really be reset as
boot may have already changed the values.
I am still not sure supporting all register values hurts. Again, being
worked a while with the ROHM PMICs I can't help of thinking situation
where 'default values' for a device are load from OTP at device start.
(This is usually how 'power-on' voltages are handled in PMICs). I think
it is quite standard thing to change the default voltages for variants
targeted to different systems. And when this is done, no one guarantees
the same register value is used for default that is set in driver to
represent certain voltage. Thus it is (in my opinion) better to support
all known register values. Here a big thing is that regulators do often
use 'linear-ranges' - which means supporting all the register values
does not really consume much of memory - unlike with the table based
implementation we have with the times here.
Furthermore, there are user-space tools to write register values past
the driver. And yes, If this is done then th euser should be prepared
for the driver to fail. Still, it does not mean we shouldn't handle this
gracefully (best we can) in driver(s) - when it does not cost much.
>>>> +
>>>> +int iio_gts_find_gain_by_sel(struct iio_gts *gts, int sel)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < gts->num_hwgain; i++)
>>>> + if (gts->hwgain_table[i].sel == sel)
>>>> + return gts->hwgain_table[i].gain;
>>>> +
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iio_gts_find_gain_by_sel);
>>>> +
>>>> +int iio_gts_get_min_gain(struct iio_gts *gts)
>>>
>>> Could just use min = INT_MAX;
>>> (indirectly from linux/limits.h, it's actually in vdso/limits.h
>>> but should not include that directly I think)
>>> then I don't hink you need the special casing for the
>>> first entry.
>>
>> Hmm. I guess you think we don't need to handle case num_hwgain == 0 here
>> as it should be checked in the initialization routine. Not sure what to
>> think about it.
>
> Yup. Using this code without having multiple hardware gains would be odd.
> Even if you did I still feel that num_hwgain == 1 would be correct setting.
The only case I can think of would be not providing hardware-gains at
all and only using the times to support the 'reg <=> time' conversions.
But yes, in that case ending up in this routine would probably be odd -
and I think using these helpers just for the 'reg <=> time' conversion
might be an overkill.
> ....
>
>>>
>>> Currently can be negative. Even when you stop that being the case
>>> by makign time unsigned, you need to be careful with ranges here.
>>> You may be better off separating the error handling from the values
>>> to avoid any issues even though that makes it a little harder to use.
>>
>> Yes. As I wrote above, I thought that the driver author needs to ensure
>> the valid times would always be positive. I was guessing usec is going
>> to be used as unit for most cases and 2000+ seconds is probably
>> sufficient. But yes, I guess I should have documented this.
>
> Why not just check this at init? Otherwise this will be a tricky bug
> to track down. Documentation is good, but code that tells you no is even
> better.
>
I agree. And I added these checks in init at v5 :)
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iio_gts_find_int_time_by_sel);
>>>> +
>>>> +int iio_gts_find_sel_by_int_time(struct iio_gts *gts, int time)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const struct iio_itime_sel_mul *itime;
>>>> +
>>>> + itime = iio_gts_find_itime_by_time(gts, time);
>>>> + if (!itime)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + return itime->sel;
>>>
>>> itime->sel can be negative. I wonder if you should just make that
>>> u16 so that you can always return it as a positive integer but
>>> having it as unsigned in the structure.
>>
>> Here I did the same assumption of sel sizes. I don't expect we to see 32
>> bit selectors. To tell the truth, I just followed the linear_ranges
>> logic which is heavily used in the regulator drivers.
>>
>>> Otherwise you need to add some docs on those limits and probably
>>> sanity check them during the _init()
>>
>> I am almost certain the sanity check is going to be an overkill, but it
>> sure is doable. The onlu corner case I can think of is if register
>> really accepts the time itself as a "selector" - but even then having
>> such large values they would use the whole 32bits would be unlikely.
>
> I'd be fine with clear documentation of the limits, but it it's trivial
> to check they are being obeyed, that makes for an easier to use bit
> of code.
True.
>
>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iio_gts_find_sel_by_int_time);
>>>> +
>>>> +static int iio_gts_get_total_gain(struct iio_gts *gts, int gain, int time)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const struct iio_itime_sel_mul *itime;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!iio_gts_valid_gain(gts, gain))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!gts->num_itime)
>>>> + return gain;
>>>> +
>>>> + itime = iio_gts_find_itime_by_time(gts, time);
>>>> + if (!itime)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + return gain * itime->mul;
>>>
>>> Check for overflow perhaps?
>>
>> I think that if we want to add the overflow checks, we should do that
>> already in init. That way we can check all the combinations before they
>> are used - so that the driver authors get the errors even if they did
>> not test all the times/gains their HW is supporting. I am not really
>> convinced it's worth though.
>
> Gains can get very very large, so in this one case I'd check it. Fine
> to do it at init though. Note the large gains sometimes come about because
> SI units sometimes mean the obvious base unit is very small or very big.
I think I added the check to init in v5 :)
Thanks again!
Yours,
--Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
