Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: allwinner: minimize irq debounce filter per default

From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Cc: Andreas Feldner <andreas@feldner-bv.de>,
	Andreas Feldner <pelzi@flying-snail.de>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: allwinner: minimize irq debounce filter per default
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 09:43:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230213084329.ulckaigwd7dof37u@houat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230210101814.2d36ae57@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 10:18:14AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > Not sure if you were actually arguing this, but the change I sketched
> > > above (interpreting 0 as 24MHz/1) is separate though, as the current
> > > default is "no DT property", and not 0. There is no input-debounce
> > > property user in the kernel tree at the moment, so we wouldn't break
> > > anyone. The only thing that would change is if a downstream user was
> > > relying on "0" being interpreted as "skip the setup", which isn't
> > > really documented and could be argued to be an implementation detail.
> > > 
> > > So I'd suggest to implement 0 as "lowest possible", and documenting that
> > > and the 32KHz/1 default if no property is given.  
> > 
> > Ah, my bad.
> > 
> > There's another thing to consider: there's already a generic per-pin
> > input-debounce property in pinctrl.
> > 
> > Since we can't control it per pin but per bank, we moved it to the
> > controller back then, but there's always been this (implicit)
> > expectation that it was behaving the same way.
> > 
> > And the generic, per-pin, input-debounce documentation says:
> > 
> > > Takes the debounce time in usec as argument or 0 to disable debouncing  
> > 
> > I agree that silently ignoring it is not great, but interpreting 0 as
> > the lowest possible is breaking that behaviour which, I believe, is a
> > worse outcome.
> 
> Is it really? If I understand the hardware manuals correctly, we cannot
> really turn that feature off, so isn't the lowest possible time period (24
> MHz/1 at the moment) the closest we can get to "turn it off"? So
> implementing this would bring us actually closer to the documented
> behaviour? Or did I get the meaning of this time period wrong?
> At least that's my understanding of how it fixed Andreas' problem: 1µs
> is still not "off", but much better than the 31µs of the default. The new
> 0 would then be 0.041µs.

My point was that the property we share the name (and should share the
semantics with) documents 0 as disabled. We would have a behavior that
doesn't disable it. It's inconsistent.

The reason doesn't really matter, we would share the same name but have
a completely different behavior, this is super confusing to me.

Maxime

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel