On Monday 24 of June 2013 21:50:21 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 07:52:11PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > Hi Thierry,
> >
> > On Wednesday 19 of June 2013 12:23:52 Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 19 of June 2013 11:43:56 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:45:02AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday 19 of June 2013 00:17:06 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:50:40PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday 17 of June 2013 22:29:11 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:18:13PM +0200, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_CLKSRC_SAMSUNG_PWM
> > > > > > > > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(samsung_pwm_lock);
> > > > > > > > > +#endif
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why is this lock global? Shouldn't it more correctly be
> > > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > samsung_pwm_chip?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are few registers shared with samsung_pwm_timer
> > > > > > > clocksource
> > > > > > > driver and so normally the spinlock is exported from it.
> > > > > > > However
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > on some platforms (namely Exynos >=4x12) kernel can be
> > > > > > > compiled
> > > > > > > without that driver, so the lock must be defined locally,
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > synchronize multiple PWM channels, as they share registers
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay, I think this needs further explanation. The clocksource
> > > > > > driver
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > used for what exactly? From a quick look it seems to be very
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > PWM-
> > > > > > specific. According to the device tree binding for the PWM
> > > > > > driver,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > timer blocks can also be used as clock sources and clock event
> > > > > > timers.
> > > > > > So if I understand correctly you have setups where you use one
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > channels as clock source or clock event timer and one or more
> > > > > > channels
> > > > > > as PWM outputs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In that case it's a very bad idea to use a global lock to
> > > > > > synchronize
> > > > > > accesses. You need to do much more than that. To properly
> > > > > > split
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > across several drivers there needs to be a mechanism to
> > > > > > allocate
> > > > > > channels for use either as clock source/event timer or PWM.
> > > > > > Otherwise,
> > > > > > how do you know that drivers aren't stepping on each other's
> > > > > > toes?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > + ret = pwm_samsung_parse_dt(chip);
> > > > > > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + chip->chip.of_xlate =
of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> > > > > > > > > + chip->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
> > > > > > > > > + } else {
> > > > > > > > > + if (!pdev->dev.platform_data) {
> > > > > > > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no platform
data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > specified\n");
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + memcpy(&chip->variant, pdev-
>dev.platform_data,
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > sizeof(chip-
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >variant));
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Obviously this needs some modification in order for the
> > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > become constant. But I think you can easily do so by
> > > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > driver
> > > > > > > > match using the platform_driver's id_table field, similar
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > matching is done for OF.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Generally output_mask is board-dependent and is passed
> > > > > > > inside a
> > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > struct using platform_data pointer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's okay. But output_mask is the only thing that's
> > > > > > board-dependent.
> > > > > > Everything else in the variant is SoC dependent judging by the
> > > > > > OF
> > > > > > device
> > > > > > table. So really only the output_mask should be part of the
> > > > > > platform
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Same platform data is used in samsung_pwm_timer clocksource
> > > > > > > driver,
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > I just reused it here without adding the need to rename
> > > > > > > platform
> > > > > > > device at runtime (see arch/arm/plat-samsung/devs.c).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking a bit at git log for the clocksource driver, there's
> > > > > > this
> > > > > >
> > > > > > commit:
> > > > > > a3ce54f clocksource: samsung_pwm_timer: Do not request PWM
> >
> > mem
> >
> > > > > region
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's an ugly workaround for sharing registers between two
> > > > > > drivers.
> > > > > > There's a reason why drivers do request_mem_region(), and it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > precisely to prevent them from accessing the same registers.
> > > > > > As I
> > > > > > already said above, I think you need to come up with some sort
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > share resources between the drivers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was a similar issue a few months back with the
> > > > > > pwm-tiehrpwm
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > pwm-tiecap drivers, which use a shared block of registers.
> > > > > > Initially
> > > > > > something similar was done as you do here, but eventually we
> > > > > > came
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > with a much better solution that involved introducing a new
> > > > > > driver
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > the shared functionality and an exported API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The situation seems to be somewhat different here since you
> > > > > > actually
> > > > > > share the same resources for different functionality instead
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > sharing
> > > > > > one subset of register across multiple drivers, but I think a
> > > > > > similar
> > > > > > solution can be applied here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, current design, or rather lack of thereof, has been
> > > > > established
> > > > > after a significant amount of discussion, mostly with ARM SoC
> > > > > and
> > > > > MFD
> > > > > maintainers.
> > > > >
> > > > > It started from a simple reorganization of the clocksource
> > > > > driver to
> > > > > be
> > > > > multiplatform friendly, without any means of synchronizing both
> > > > > drivers
> > > > > other than local_irq_save() and _restore() that used to be there
> > > > > originally, before I started my work on this. This was enough to
> > > > > work
> > > > > correctly, because both drivers at the same time are used only
> > > > > on
> > > > > uniprocessor systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the thread with patches:
> > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/16664/foc
> > > > > us=1
> > > > > 726
> > > > > 7
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I opened a Pandora's Box by asking for opinion in this
> > > > > thread:
> > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/16480/foc
> > > > > us=1
> > > > > 650
> > > > > 0
> > > > >
> > > > > After that I started working on a complex framework for sharing
> > > > > this
> > > > > IP
> > > > > block that would solve all the problems with synchronization,
> > > > > channel
> > > > > allocation, device tree parsing, variant management, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's an initial version, which started as an MFD master
> > > > > driver,
> > > > > which
> > > > > would let 2 client drivers use the hardware (only the
> > > > > clocksource
> > > > > part
> > > > > was implemented in that series):
> > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/17464/foc
> > > > > us=2
> > > > > 292
> > > > > 50
> > > > >
> > > > > Still, that version didn't receive too good feedback, with
> > > > > comments
> > > > > pointing me to change the architecture to master-slave, with the
> > > > > clocksource driver being the master and PWM driver being the
> > > > > slave.
> > > > > And
> > > > > so v5 was made:
> > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/17864
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, this seemed to be going in the right direction.
> > > >
> > > > > This version was generally accepted, but then we discussed on
> > > > > IRC
> > > > > (mostly me and Arnd) whether such complex infrastructure is
> > > > > really
> > > > > needed and concluded that for this platform a simple shared
> > > > > spinlock
> > > > > would be enough, based on following reasons:
> > > > > - on all SoCs on which the clocksource driver is going to be
> > > > > used
> > > > > there
> > > > > is only one instance of the PWM block, with 5 channels
> > > >
> > > > You say that now. But then at some point somebody decides that it
> > > > might
> > > > be useful to have a second instance.
> > >
> > > No, he won't.
> > >
> > > Simply because no new SoC is going to be made which will use the
> > > samsung_pwm_timer driver and all existing ones have only a single
> > > instance of this IP.
> > >
> > > > > - on all existing boards there are always at least two channels
> > > > > that
> > > > > don't have outputs
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how that's relevant here.
> > >
> > > This is the information passed through output_mask. Clocksource
> > > driver
> > > can use _only_ channels without output and PWM driver can use _only_
> > > channels with output.
> > >
> > > Both drivers receive the same output_mask value, either from the
> > > same
> > > variant structure or from device tree.
> > >
> > > > > - operations on particular PWM channels must be synchronized
> > > > > anyway,
> > > > > because there are registers shared by all PWM channels (TCON
> > > > > being
> > > > > most
> > > > > important where enable, autoreload and invert bits are located
> > > > > for
> > > > > all
> > > > > channels).
> > > >
> > > > And that's precisely why there should be a more explicit way of
> > > > synchronizing than just acquiring a lock. Otherwise you have no
> > > > possibility whatsoever to detect when a board tries to use both
> > > > the
> > > > clocksource and PWM drivers in incompatible ways. The lock may
> > > > prevent
> > > > concurrent accesses to the shared registers, but that won't help
> > > > you
> > > > if
> > > > the PWM driver suddenly decides to use an output that was
> > > > originally
> > > > meant to be used as clock source.
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> > > > > And so we got to current design which is basically a shared
> > > > > spinlock
> > > > > and
> > > > > per-board output_mask, which specifies which channels have
> > > > > outputs
> > > > > on
> > > > > particular boards. If you look to the clocksource driver, you
> > > > > can
> > > > > see
> > > > > that it tries to allocate two output-less channels for
> > > > > timekeeping
> > > > > purposes and if it fails to do so, it simply panics.
> > > > >
> > > > > IMHO this solution is fine, because it's simple, has little
> > > > > overhead
> > > > > and
> > > > > it just works in case of platforms for which it is needed.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I like simple. But I see too much potential for this to
> > > > break
> > > > in the future. There are just too many assumptions for my taste.
> > > > It
> > > > isn't anything that I'm looking forward to have to maintain.
> > >
> > > Those are completely safe assumptions for existing platforms. Any
> > > new
> > > platform with the same PWM IP will use this driver exclusively,
> > > without
> > > the clocksource driver and so without the problems you mentioned.
> >
> > Would you mind taking into account things I pointed in reply above?
>
> I took those into account. But quite frankly they're no excuse for not
> having at least a half-decent design. Even if you could guarantee that
> the same IP wasn't used in a different combination than you expect,
> keeping what you have now sets a very bad example and people will copy
> because they don't know better and I'll have to explain this all over
> again.
OK. So we just need to prevent people from blindly copying this.
Wouldn't adding a big comment about why this is enough for this platform
and why anything more sophisticated would be just overengineering in this
case be enough?
As you could see in several versions of the series I linked in my previous
replies, anything that looked decently simply added a lot of glue code and
cross module dependencies without serving any useful purpose, other than
just looking good.
This driver is already a lot better than previous one, because as opposed
to the old one, it gives synchronization that is technically correct. Not
even saying about a lot of other things fixed, like multiplatform-
awareness, OF support, coding style, proper handling of dividers, etc.,
etc. It would be really bad if all this was put to waste...
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
