From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Cc: linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, Drew Fustini <drew@pdp7.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] gpio: expose line bias flags to userspace
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 14:48:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191106064842.GB3478@sol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMpxmJW6R0gv5VG95ayx2wGSdPG1hUnuKqxtBEeWg+MHkcWX3Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:07:58PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> wt., 5 lis 2019 o 17:24 Bartosz Golaszewski
> <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> napisał(a):
> >
> > wt., 5 lis 2019 o 16:26 Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:04:22AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > Patches are against Bart's gpio/for-kent branch[1].
> > > >
> > > > The patch has been successfully tested against gpio-mockup, and
> > > > on a Raspberry Pi, in both cases using the feature/pud_set_config
> > > > branch of my Go gpiod library[2], as well as with my feature/pud
> > > > development branch of libgpiod[3]. Patch 7 has only been tested using
> > > > my gpiod library as libgpiod has not yet been updated to support the
> > > > SET_CONFIG ioctl.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've just pushed a first pass at SET_CONFIG support into my libgpiod
> > > feature/pud branch. It is causing me a bit of grief. Due to the way
> > > the libgpiod API is structured, with the direction flags pulled out into
> > > the request type, I thought it would be cleaner to keep changes to direction
> > > orthogonal to changes to the other handle flags.
> > >
> >
> > I'd love to see that branch - is it public?
> >
> > > So I've added these methods to the API:
> > >
> > > int gpiod_line_set_config(struct gpiod_line *line, int flags)
> > > int gpiod_line_set_direction_input(struct gpiod_line *line)
> > > int gpiod_line_set_direction_output(struct gpiod_line *line,
> > > int value)
> > >
> > > along with their bulk equivalents.
> > >
> > > I've coded that and started adding tests when I tripped over changing
> > > bias. The kernel requires a direction to be set, but I'm setting it
> > > as-is in gpiod_line_set_config - so that wont work.
> > > Open drain/source are in the same boat - they require output mode.
> > >
> >
> > Ha! Yes this is a problem - how about this:
> >
> > If the caller of set_config in the kernel doesn't pass any of the
> > direction flags, then we read the current direction, set the right
> > flag in lflags and only then call the function validating the flags?
> >
>
I was also thinking along that line - the config would be carried over
from the initial request and any subsequent SET_CONFIGs.
The kernel could overlay the existing config over any field set
"as-is" before performing validation.
The validation requirement would stand, but you don't need to pass the
complete state, possibly including output values, with each SET_CONFIG
request.
In the bias case above, I create the line as an output and so should
be able to set the bias, even if neither INPUT nor OUTPUT is set in
the SET_CONFIG request.
> After another thought: this would be a bit inconsistent with the rest
> of the flags. IIRC this was the reason for me to split the
> request_type and other flags into two separate fields in libgpiod in
> the first place.
>
It is a bit inconsisent, so how about changing the rest of the flags
to make them consistent? They need to have an as-is state, which
corresponds to no flags set, and you then leave that field as is.
We currently have four fields in the handle flags - direction, active
state, drive, and bias. Of those, direction and bias have as-is states.
What we are missing are additional flags so we have an as-is state for
active state and drive.
Currently:
ACTIVE_LOW == 0 => ACTIVE_HIGH, and
OPEN_DRAIN == 0 && OPEN_SOURCE == 0 => PUSH_PULL.
If we added an ACTIVE_HIGH flag, to counter ACTIVE_LOW, and PUSH_PULL
to counter OPEN_DRAIN/OPEN_SOURCE, then we can have SET_CONFIG change
the four fields (direction, active state, drive and bias), independently,
or not, as the caller sees fit.
For backward compatibility, the lines would be created with ACTIVE_HIGH
and PUSH_PULL set, should they be requested "as-is", by the new
definition.
This feels like the right solution to me - as I write this anyway.
The biggest downside I can see is that it means pulling v6, or at least
the SET_CONFIG patches, pending an update.
> When I think about it: the kernel behavior should be as predictable as
> possible - if we keep the behavior as is in v6, I don't see why we
> couldn't make userspace cache (or re-read) the current direction when
> setting flags other than direction? Do you see any trouble in that?
> That way we'd avoid having the kernel treat different flags in
> different way.
>
If in userspace then it will have to be cached - the kernel still has
issues reading back output values for emulated open drain/source outputs.
Fixing that is somewhere down my todo list.
I can't think of any concrete problems with caching.
It gives me "I have a bad feeling about this" vibe, but I can't pin
down why. Maybe wanting to avoid shadowing kernel state in userspace?
But, as above, I'd rather fix the flags so we have as-is for all, and
caching becomes unnecessary.
> Bart
>
> > > I see these options:
> > > 1. set the direction as part of gpiod_line_set_config
> > > 2. relax the kernel restriction.
> >
> > Yes, I don't think we should force users to always pass the direction
> > flag in set_config. Good point.
> >
> > > 3. don't support changing bias or open source/drain.
> >
> > No! We definitely want to support it in libgpiod.
Agreed.
> >
> > > 4. rethink the API.
> >
> > As for libgpiod: I think we should have a low-level
> > gpiod_line_set_config() that would set both the direction and other
> > flags (it could for instance only accept two request flags: input and
> > output) and then a higher-level set_flags(), set_direction_input(),
> > set_direction_output() that would call the low-level variant and - for
> > set_flags() without the direction argument - it could simply retrieve
> > the current direction and pass it to gpiod_line_set_config().
> >
I agree that there should add be a fully capable low level option.
The low level function would look have a signature like this:
int gpiod_line_set_config(struct gpiod_line *line, int direction, int flags,
const int *default_vals)
The existing gpiod_line_set_config would be renamed gpiod_line_set_flags.
> > But this is only a vague idea - I'd have to actually start looking at
> > the code to be sure. I'd love to see what you came up with so far
> > though!
> >
Indeed - what I had in mind changed radically once I had a closer look
at the libgpiod API. And it is still changing.
Cheers,
Kent.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-06 6:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-05 2:04 [PATCH v6 0/7] gpio: expose line bias flags to userspace Kent Gibson
2019-11-05 2:04 ` [PATCH v6 1/7] gpio: expose pull-up/pull-down line " Kent Gibson
2019-11-05 2:04 ` [PATCH v6 2/7] gpiolib: add support for pull up/down to lineevent_create Kent Gibson
2019-11-05 2:04 ` [PATCH v6 3/7] gpiolib: add support for disabling line bias Kent Gibson
2019-11-05 2:04 ` [PATCH v6 4/7] gpiolib: add support for biasing output lines Kent Gibson
2019-11-06 19:39 ` Drew Fustini
2019-11-06 23:56 ` Kent Gibson
2019-11-05 2:04 ` [PATCH v6 5/7] gpio: mockup: add set_config to support pull up/down Kent Gibson
2019-11-05 2:04 ` [PATCH v6 6/7] gpiolib: move validation of line handle flags into helper function Kent Gibson
2019-11-05 2:04 ` [PATCH v6 7/7] gpio: add new SET_CONFIG ioctl() to gpio chardev Kent Gibson
2019-11-05 15:05 ` [PATCH v6 0/7] gpio: expose line bias flags to userspace Bartosz Golaszewski
2019-11-07 8:10 ` Linus Walleij
2019-11-05 15:26 ` Kent Gibson
2019-11-05 16:24 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2019-11-05 21:07 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2019-11-06 6:48 ` Kent Gibson [this message]
2019-11-06 13:59 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2019-11-06 16:58 ` Kent Gibson
2019-11-06 17:06 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2019-11-06 23:20 ` Kent Gibson
2019-11-07 10:39 ` Kent Gibson
2019-11-07 11:28 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2019-11-07 12:18 ` Kent Gibson
2019-11-05 23:15 ` Kent Gibson
2019-11-07 17:57 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2020-04-15 14:03 ` boards to test gpio line bias flags? Drew Fustini
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=20191106064842.GB3478@sol \
--to=warthog618@gmail.com \
--cc=bgolaszewski@baylibre.com \
--cc=drew@pdp7.com \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).