Re: [PATCH] iio: dht11: Read bit stream from IRQ on falling edges only

[harald@ccbib.org]

On 2023-02-11 11:41, pelzi@flying-snail.de wrote:
> Am 07.02.23 um 11:33 schrieb harald@ccbib.org:
>> 2) A theoretical analysis about possible regressions depending on 
>> timer
>> resolution as mentioned in an earlier message.
> 
> This sounds as if you were doing such an analysis for the original
> version. Can you share this work so I can attempt to repeat it
> for the modified algorithm?

The short version is in the comments. The relevant section is:
/*
  * Data transmission timing:
  * Data bits are encoded as pulse length (high time) on the data line.
  * 0-bit: 22-30uS -- typically 26uS (AM2302)
  * 1-bit: 68-75uS -- typically 70uS (AM2302)
  * The acutal timings also depend on the properties of the cable, with
  * longer cables typically making pulses shorter.
  *
  * Our decoding depends on the time resolution of the system:
  * timeres > 34uS ... don't know what a 1-tick pulse is
  * 34uS > timeres > 30uS ... no problem (30kHz and 32kHz clocks)
  * 30uS > timeres > 23uS ... don't know what a 2-tick pulse is
  * timeres < 23uS ... no problem

The long version I probably don't have anymore, but it's not rocket
science. Just multiples of the time resolution. Eg:
34 = 68/2
23 = 68/3

>> 3) Ideally figuring out, why your version performs better then what we
>> currently have. I have some suspicions, but better understanding might
>> lead to a better approach. E.g. maybe recording the other edges isn't
>> the problem so long as we ignore them during decoding?
>> 
>> As I see it, the main thing we are losing with your current proposal 
>> is
>> some diagnostic features. If we keep them as much as possible and have
>> regressions understood and covered, I see no reason to reject your 
>> idea.
> 
> That's why I changed the script to separately count EIO and ETIMEDOUT.
> The latter indicates missed edges, the former failure to interpret
> the data read.
> 
> What I see is that the patched driver's errors mostly result from 
> missed
> IRQ (note in contrast to last results, I cut the number of reads):
> 
> #    real[s]    user[s]    sys[s]    success    EIO    timeout err per 
> succ
> 1     20.57    0.25    0.03    10    0    0    0
> 2     24.74    0.25    0.07    10    0    4    0,4
> 3     21.55    0.20    0.07    10    0    0    0
> 4     25.81    0.25    0.08    10    0    5    0,5
> 5     21.56    0.23    0.05    10    0    0    0
> 6     21.58    0.22    0.05    10    1    0    0,1
> 7     25.86    0.24    0.08    10    1    5    0,6
> 8     22.69    0.27    0.05    10    1    1    0,2
> 9     23.67    0.26    0.04    10    0    2    0,2
> 10     20.55    0.23    0.04    10    0    0    0
> 
> Whereas the original driver has more errors resulting from
> mis-interpreted data:
> 
> #    real[s]    user[s]    sys[s]    success    EIO    timeout err per 
> succ
> 1     24.88    0.26    0.07    10    5    4    0,9
> 2     25.91    0.26    0.07    10    4    5    0,9
> 3     31.27    0.31    0.10    10    6    10    1,6
> 4     29.17    0.32    0.11    10    7    8    1,5
> 5     22.73    0.24    0.08    10    4    2    0,6
> 6     46.46    0.35    0.25    10    19    24    4,3
> 7     23.79    0.23    0.09    10    3    3    0,6
> 8     30.17    0.27    0.11    10    6    9    1,5
> 9     23.77    0.26    0.06    10    3    2    0,5
> 10     20.58    0.24    0.06    10    1    0    0,1
> 
> I tried a variant that reads falling and rising edges and
> uses the redundany of information to eliminate some errors.
> This did not work out at all.

That's an interesting data point. Care to share the code?

> It seems a relevant source of
> trouble is delayed call to the IRQ handler. The problem is
> that only then you try to find out if this IRQ is due to
> rising or falling edge by reading the current GPIO level. When
> you are to late, this might already have changed and you read
> a level, but for the edge of _this_ level you'll receive another
> IRQ a few us later.

I doubt this interpretation. Mostly I don't think you would even
get a second interrupt in this case: It is just a flag that
indicates something has changed, not a counter.

I expect, that you just get one missing edge (which we don't notice,
because we are tolerant about a missing preamble), which would
show as two consecutive edges of the same value - not three as
your explanation suggests.

I don't see, why it wouldn't be possible to recover from that,
in cases, where the delay is small enough for your version to work.

> So the reason that this patch here is showing
> lower error rates seems to be the lower probability of such
> things happening by halving the IRQs to be handled, _plus_
> the information from the hardware, that this IRQ was due
> to a falling edge.

The first part is likely true at the moment and seems enough to
explain the data you have shown. I still believe we could be
smart about the second part in software.

Thanks,
Harald