All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
To: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
	Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] counter/ti-eqep: add support for latched position
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:44:15 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YXkDT2gaFfdIsgTQ@shinobu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211017013343.3385923-6-david@lechnology.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4056 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 08:33:40PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> This adds support to the TI eQEP counter driver for a latched position.
> This is a new extension that gets the counter count that was recorded
> when an event was triggered. A new device-level latch_mode attribute is
> added to select the trigger. Edge capture unit support will be needed
> to make full use of this, but "Unit timeout" mode can already be used
> to calculate high speeds.
> 
> The unit timer could also have attributes for latched_time and
> latched_period that use the same trigger. However this is not a use
> case at this time, so they can be added later if needed.

I see that "latched_count" holds the captured counter count; would this
"latched_time" hold the captured unit timer time? If so, does that mean
setting the latch mode to "Unit timeout" always results in a
"latched_time" equal to 0 (assuming that's when the timeout event
triggers)?

> 
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> ---
>  drivers/counter/ti-eqep.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/counter/ti-eqep.c b/drivers/counter/ti-eqep.c
> index 1ba7f3c7cb7e..ef899655ad1d 100644
> --- a/drivers/counter/ti-eqep.c
> +++ b/drivers/counter/ti-eqep.c
> @@ -405,12 +405,28 @@ static int ti_eqep_direction_read(struct counter_device *counter,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int ti_eqep_position_latched_count_read(struct counter_device *counter,
> +					       struct counter_count *count,
> +					       u64 *value)
> +{
> +	struct ti_eqep_cnt *priv = counter->priv;
> +	u32 qposlat;
> +
> +	regmap_read(priv->regmap32, QPOSLAT, &qposlat);
> +
> +	*value = qposlat;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static struct counter_comp ti_eqep_position_ext[] = {
>  	COUNTER_COMP_CEILING(ti_eqep_position_ceiling_read,
>  			     ti_eqep_position_ceiling_write),
>  	COUNTER_COMP_ENABLE(ti_eqep_position_enable_read,
>  			    ti_eqep_position_enable_write),
>  	COUNTER_COMP_DIRECTION(ti_eqep_direction_read),
> +	COUNTER_COMP_COUNT_U64("latched_count",
> +			       ti_eqep_position_latched_count_read, NULL),
>  };
>  
>  static struct counter_signal ti_eqep_signals[] = {
> @@ -463,6 +479,38 @@ static struct counter_count ti_eqep_counts[] = {
>  	},
>  };
>  
> +static int ti_eqep_latch_mode_read(struct counter_device *counter,
> +					    u32 *value)
> +{
> +	struct ti_eqep_cnt *priv = counter->priv;
> +	u32 qepctl;
> +
> +	regmap_read(priv->regmap16, QEPCTL, &qepctl);
> +	*value = !!(qepctl & QEPCTL_QCLM);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int ti_eqep_latch_mode_write(struct counter_device *counter,
> +					     u32 value)
> +{
> +	struct ti_eqep_cnt *priv = counter->priv;
> +
> +	if (value)
> +		regmap_set_bits(priv->regmap16, QEPCTL, QEPCTL_QCLM);
> +	else
> +		regmap_clear_bits(priv->regmap16, QEPCTL, QEPCTL_QCLM);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const char *const ti_eqep_latch_mode_names[] = {
> +	"Read count",
> +	"Unit timeout",
> +};
> +
> +static DEFINE_COUNTER_ENUM(ti_eqep_latch_modes, ti_eqep_latch_mode_names);
> +
>  static int ti_eqep_unit_timer_time_read(struct counter_device *counter,
>  				       u64 *value)
>  {
> @@ -553,6 +601,8 @@ static int ti_eqep_unit_timer_enable_write(struct counter_device *counter,
>  }
>  
>  static struct counter_comp ti_eqep_device_ext[] = {
> +	COUNTER_COMP_DEVICE_ENUM("latch_mode", ti_eqep_latch_mode_read,
> +				ti_eqep_latch_mode_write, ti_eqep_latch_modes),

It seems more appropriate to move this alongside "latched_count" as
Count extension because this is setting the trigger mode to latch the
respective Count's count. Or does this particular extension also affect
the "latched_time" capture for the unit timer?

William Breathitt Gray

>  	COUNTER_COMP_DEVICE_U64("unit_timer_time", ti_eqep_unit_timer_time_read,
>  				ti_eqep_unit_timer_time_write),
>  	COUNTER_COMP_DEVICE_U64("unit_timer_period",
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-27  7:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-17  1:33 [PATCH 0/8] counter: ti-eqep: implement features for speed measurement David Lechner
2021-10-17  1:33 ` [PATCH 1/8] counter/ti-eqep: implement over/underflow events David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:10   ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-25  7:13   ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-27 15:23     ` David Lechner
2021-10-28  6:41       ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17  1:33 ` [PATCH 2/8] counter/ti-eqep: add support for direction David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:11   ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-25  7:29   ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17  1:33 ` [PATCH 3/8] counter/ti-eqep: add support for unit timer David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:20   ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-25  8:48   ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-27 15:28     ` David Lechner
2021-10-28  7:48       ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-28 13:42         ` David Lechner
2021-10-30  8:35           ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17  1:33 ` [PATCH 4/8] docs: counter: add unit timer sysfs attributes David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:23   ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-27  6:46   ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-27 15:30     ` David Lechner
2021-10-28  7:59       ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-30 16:40         ` David Lechner
2021-11-01  4:08           ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-11-01  5:27             ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17  1:33 ` [PATCH 5/8] counter/ti-eqep: add support for latched position David Lechner
2021-10-27  7:44   ` William Breathitt Gray [this message]
2021-10-27 15:40     ` David Lechner
2021-10-28  8:12       ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17  1:33 ` [PATCH 6/8] docs: counter: add latch_mode and latched_count sysfs attributes David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:26   ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-27  7:54   ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-27 17:00     ` David Lechner
2021-10-30  1:32       ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-30 14:39         ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-11-01  5:11           ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17  1:33 ` [PATCH 7/8] counter/ti-eqep: add support for edge capture unit David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:29   ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-27  8:23   ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-27 17:28     ` David Lechner
2021-10-17  1:33 ` [PATCH 8/8] docs: counter: add edge_capture_unit_* attributes David Lechner
2021-10-27  8:26   ` William Breathitt Gray

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=YXkDT2gaFfdIsgTQ@shinobu \
    --to=vilhelm.gray@gmail.com \
    --cc=david@lechnology.com \
    --cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robertcnelson@gmail.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.