Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] iio: Add PAT9125 optical tracker sensor

Alexandre Mergnat
2019-07-11T19:39:24Z

Le dim. 16 juin 2019 à 17:39, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> a écrit :
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:29:45 +0200
> Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@baylibre.com> wrote:
...
>
> > +/*
> > + * To detect if a new value is available, register status is checked. This
> > + * method is safer than using a flag on GPIO IRQ to track event while sampling
> > + * because falling edge is missed when device trig just after a read reg value
> > + * (that happen for fast motions or high CPI setting).
>
> So we have an edge triggered interrupt that doesn't have a 'minimum low'
> period? If so then the only safe way to handle it would be as a level
> interrupt. Can you do that here?
> (I once had the delights of a sensor like this tied to a edge sensitive only
> interrupt, but thankfully those are a rare thing these days).
>

Trigger level is the first setup I tried (and retried during
modifications) but it cannot
works despite of ONESHOT flag. I'm wrong or it's probably due to
nested_irq because
it works when I reset interrupt (by reading data) during one of the
IRQ thread, that what
I did in my V1 patch. I spent a lot of time to try to use level
trigger but this is the
best way I found to do it properly without corner cases.
The result with nested IRQ and low level trigger is a spamming IRQ
(probably due to IRQ no more masked during nested IRQ thread) who that stuck the
board because it hasn't time to make an I2C read to reset interrupt pin.

> > + * buffer mode and kernel warning due to nested IRQ thread,
> > + * this function must return 0.
> > + */
> > +static int pat9125_trig_try_reenable(struct iio_trigger *trig)
> > +{
> > + struct pat9125_data *data = iio_trigger_get_drvdata(trig);
> > + struct regmap *regmap = data->regmap;
> > + int status = 0;
> > +
> > + if (data->sampling) {
> > + regmap_read(regmap, PAT9125_MOTION_STATUS_REG, &status);
> > + if (status & PAT9125_VALID_MOTION_DATA_BIT) {
> > + data->sampling = false;
> So we only ever do 2 reads? Why can't we be unlucky on timing
> twice in a row?

That can works indefinitely, I tested for some retry in a row by
moving the chip fastly.
If the method blocked at 2 readings, I should have been stuck during this test.

If read status return "New data available", a new read value is done
through the same
process (that mean data->sampling put to true) thanks to nested IRQ
thread which will
call try_reenable again and then re-check pat9125 status.