[PATCH v3] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux_setting for a pin

[PATCH v3] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux_setting for a pin

[fwu]

From: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>

What the patch did:
1.To call pinmux_disable_setting ahead of pinmux_enable_setting in each time of
  calling pinctrl_select_state
2.Remove the HW disable operation in in pinmux_disable_setting function.

The reason why to do this is that:
1.To avoid duplicated calling enable_setting operation without disabling
  operation which will let Pin's desc->mux_usecount keep being added.
2.The HW pin disable operation is not useful for most of the vendors' platform.
  And this can be used to avoid the HW glitch after using the item 1#
  modification.

In the following case, the issue can be reproduced:
1)There is a driver need to switch Pin state dynamicly, E.g. b/t "sleep" and
"default" state
2)The Pin setting configuration in DTS node may be like the following one:
component a {
	pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
	pinctrl-0 = <&a_grp_setting &c_grp_setting>;
	pinctrl-1 = <&b_grp_setting &c_grp_setting>;
}
The "c_grp_setting" config node is totaly same, maybe like following one:
c_grp_setting: c_grp_setting {
	pinctrl-single,pins = <GPIO48 AF6>;
	MFP_DEFAULT;
}
3)When switching the Pin state in the following official Pinctrl sequence:
	pin = pinctrl_get();
	state = pinctrl_lookup_state(wanted_state);
	pinctrl_select_state(state);
	pinctrl_put();

Test Result:
1)The switch is completed as expectation, that is: component's
Pins configuration are changed according to the description in the
"wanted_state" group setting
2)The "desc->mux_usecount" of corresponding Pins in "c_group" is added without being
decreased, because the "desc" is for each physical pin while the "setting" is
for each setting node in the DTS.
Thus, if the "c_grp_setting" in pinctrl-0 is not disabled ahead of enabling
"c_grp_setting" in pinctrl-1, the desc->mux_usecount will be kept added without
any chance to be decreased.

According to the comments in the original code, only the setting, in old state
but not in new state, will be "disable"(calling pinmux_disable_setting), which
is correct logic but not intact. We still need consider case that the setting
is in both old state and new state.
We can do this in the following two ways:
1) Avoid "enable"(calling pinmux_enable_setting) the Same Pins setting repeatedly.
2) "Disable"(calling pinmux_disable_setting) the "Same Pins setting", actually
two setting instance, ahead of enabling them.

Analysis:
1.The solution 2# is better because it can avoid too much iteration.
2.If we disable all of the setting in the old state and one/ones of the setting(s) is/are
existed in the new state, the Pin's mux function change may happen when
some SoC vendors defined the "pinctrl-single,function-off" in their DTS file.
old_setting=>disabled_setting=>new_setting.
3.In the pinmux framework, when Pin state is switched, the setting in the old state should be
marked as "disabled".

Conclusion:
1.To Remove the HW disabling operation to above the glitch mentioned above.
2.Handle the issue mentioned above by disabling all of the settings in old
state and then enable the all of the settings in new state.

Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/pinctrl/core.c   |   24 +++++-------------------
 drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c |    4 ----
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
index c0fe609..4445a67 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
@@ -989,29 +989,15 @@ int pinctrl_select_state(struct pinctrl *p, struct pinctrl_state *state)
 
 	if (p->state) {
 		/*
-		 * The set of groups with a mux configuration in the old state
-		 * may not be identical to the set of groups with a mux setting
-		 * in the new state. While this might be unusual, it's entirely
-		 * possible for the "user"-supplied mapping table to be written
-		 * that way. For each group that was configured in the old state
-		 * but not in the new state, this code puts that group into a
-		 * safe/disabled state.
+		 * For each pinmux setting in the old state, forget SW's record
+		 * of mux owner for that pingroup. Any pingroups which are
+		 * still owned by the new state will be re-acquired by the call
+		 * to pinmux_enable_setting() in the loop below.
 		 */
 		list_for_each_entry(setting, &p->state->settings, node) {
-			bool found = false;
 			if (setting->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP)
 				continue;
-			list_for_each_entry(setting2, &state->settings, node) {
-				if (setting2->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP)
-					continue;
-				if (setting2->data.mux.group ==
-						setting->data.mux.group) {
-					found = true;
-					break;
-				}
-			}
-			if (!found)
-				pinmux_disable_setting(setting);
+			pinmux_disable_setting(setting);
 		}
 	}
 
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
index 9248ce4..c2c4aff 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
@@ -469,7 +469,6 @@ void pinmux_disable_setting(struct pinctrl_setting const *setting)
 {
 	struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev = setting->pctldev;
 	const struct pinctrl_ops *pctlops = pctldev->desc->pctlops;
-	const struct pinmux_ops *ops = pctldev->desc->pmxops;
 	int ret;
 	const unsigned *pins;
 	unsigned num_pins;
@@ -515,9 +514,6 @@ void pinmux_disable_setting(struct pinctrl_setting const *setting)
 				 pins[i], desc->name, gname);
 		}
 	}
-
-	if (ops->disable)
-		ops->disable(pctldev, setting->data.mux.func, setting->data.mux.group);
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH v3] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux_setting for a pin

[FanWu]

On 05/26/2014 10:43 AM, fwu@marvell.com wrote:
> From: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
>
> What the patch did:
> 1.To call pinmux_disable_setting ahead of pinmux_enable_setting in each time of
>    calling pinctrl_select_state
> 2.Remove the HW disable operation in in pinmux_disable_setting function.
>
> The reason why to do this is that:
> 1.To avoid duplicated calling enable_setting operation without disabling
>    operation which will let Pin's desc->mux_usecount keep being added.
> 2.The HW pin disable operation is not useful for most of the vendors' platform.
>    And this can be used to avoid the HW glitch after using the item 1#
>    modification.
>
> In the following case, the issue can be reproduced:
> 1)There is a driver need to switch Pin state dynamicly, E.g. b/t "sleep" and
> "default" state
> 2)The Pin setting configuration in DTS node may be like the following one:
> component a {
> 	pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
> 	pinctrl-0 = <&a_grp_setting &c_grp_setting>;
> 	pinctrl-1 = <&b_grp_setting &c_grp_setting>;
> }
> The "c_grp_setting" config node is totaly same, maybe like following one:
> c_grp_setting: c_grp_setting {
> 	pinctrl-single,pins = <GPIO48 AF6>;
> 	MFP_DEFAULT;
> }
> 3)When switching the Pin state in the following official Pinctrl sequence:
> 	pin = pinctrl_get();
> 	state = pinctrl_lookup_state(wanted_state);
> 	pinctrl_select_state(state);
> 	pinctrl_put();
>
> Test Result:
> 1)The switch is completed as expectation, that is: component's
> Pins configuration are changed according to the description in the
> "wanted_state" group setting
> 2)The "desc->mux_usecount" of corresponding Pins in "c_group" is added without being
> decreased, because the "desc" is for each physical pin while the "setting" is
> for each setting node in the DTS.
> Thus, if the "c_grp_setting" in pinctrl-0 is not disabled ahead of enabling
> "c_grp_setting" in pinctrl-1, the desc->mux_usecount will be kept added without
> any chance to be decreased.
>
> According to the comments in the original code, only the setting, in old state
> but not in new state, will be "disable"(calling pinmux_disable_setting), which
> is correct logic but not intact. We still need consider case that the setting
> is in both old state and new state.
> We can do this in the following two ways:
> 1) Avoid "enable"(calling pinmux_enable_setting) the Same Pins setting repeatedly.
> 2) "Disable"(calling pinmux_disable_setting) the "Same Pins setting", actually
> two setting instance, ahead of enabling them.
>
> Analysis:
> 1.The solution 2# is better because it can avoid too much iteration.
> 2.If we disable all of the setting in the old state and one/ones of the setting(s) is/are
> existed in the new state, the Pin's mux function change may happen when
> some SoC vendors defined the "pinctrl-single,function-off" in their DTS file.
> old_setting=>disabled_setting=>new_setting.
> 3.In the pinmux framework, when Pin state is switched, the setting in the old state should be
> marked as "disabled".
>
> Conclusion:
> 1.To Remove the HW disabling operation to above the glitch mentioned above.
> 2.Handle the issue mentioned above by disabling all of the settings in old
> state and then enable the all of the settings in new state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> ---
>   drivers/pinctrl/core.c   |   24 +++++-------------------
>   drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c |    4 ----
>   2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
> index c0fe609..4445a67 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
> @@ -989,29 +989,15 @@ int pinctrl_select_state(struct pinctrl *p, struct pinctrl_state *state)
>
>   	if (p->state) {
>   		/*
> -		 * The set of groups with a mux configuration in the old state
> -		 * may not be identical to the set of groups with a mux setting
> -		 * in the new state. While this might be unusual, it's entirely
> -		 * possible for the "user"-supplied mapping table to be written
> -		 * that way. For each group that was configured in the old state
> -		 * but not in the new state, this code puts that group into a
> -		 * safe/disabled state.
> +		 * For each pinmux setting in the old state, forget SW's record
> +		 * of mux owner for that pingroup. Any pingroups which are
> +		 * still owned by the new state will be re-acquired by the call
> +		 * to pinmux_enable_setting() in the loop below.
>   		 */
>   		list_for_each_entry(setting, &p->state->settings, node) {
> -			bool found = false;
>   			if (setting->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP)
>   				continue;
> -			list_for_each_entry(setting2, &state->settings, node) {
> -				if (setting2->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP)
> -					continue;
> -				if (setting2->data.mux.group ==
> -						setting->data.mux.group) {
> -					found = true;
> -					break;
> -				}
> -			}
> -			if (!found)
> -				pinmux_disable_setting(setting);
> +			pinmux_disable_setting(setting);
>   		}
>   	}
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
> index 9248ce4..c2c4aff 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
> @@ -469,7 +469,6 @@ void pinmux_disable_setting(struct pinctrl_setting const *setting)
>   {
>   	struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev = setting->pctldev;
>   	const struct pinctrl_ops *pctlops = pctldev->desc->pctlops;
> -	const struct pinmux_ops *ops = pctldev->desc->pmxops;
>   	int ret;
>   	const unsigned *pins;
>   	unsigned num_pins;
> @@ -515,9 +514,6 @@ void pinmux_disable_setting(struct pinctrl_setting const *setting)
>   				 pins[i], desc->name, gname);
>   		}
>   	}
> -
> -	if (ops->disable)
> -		ops->disable(pctldev, setting->data.mux.func, setting->data.mux.group);
>   }
>
>   #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>


Dear Stephen,

Great thanks for your suggestion about the inline comments in the patch.
I have updated the part you mentioned and the patch title.
Please help to review again.

Great to see that we almost get the goal of the long term discussion! :)

After this patch is acknowledged by you Guys, I will submit the 
following two patches for you to review:
1.to remove the ops->disable registration in pinctrl-single
2.to remove the ops->disable function phandle in pinmux struct.

Great thanks for this !

Re: [PATCH v3] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux_setting for a pin

[FanWu]

On 05/26/2014 10:52 AM, FanWu wrote:
> On 05/26/2014 10:43 AM, fwu@marvell.com wrote:
>> From: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
>>
>> What the patch did:
>> 1.To call pinmux_disable_setting ahead of pinmux_enable_setting in
>> each time of
>>    calling pinctrl_select_state
>> 2.Remove the HW disable operation in in pinmux_disable_setting function.
>>
>> The reason why to do this is that:
>> 1.To avoid duplicated calling enable_setting operation without disabling
>>    operation which will let Pin's desc->mux_usecount keep being added.
>> 2.The HW pin disable operation is not useful for most of the vendors'
>> platform.
>>    And this can be used to avoid the HW glitch after using the item 1#
>>    modification.
>>
>> In the following case, the issue can be reproduced:
>> 1)There is a driver need to switch Pin state dynamicly, E.g. b/t
>> "sleep" and
>> "default" state
>> 2)The Pin setting configuration in DTS node may be like the following
>> one:
>> component a {
>>     pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
>>     pinctrl-0 = <&a_grp_setting &c_grp_setting>;
>>     pinctrl-1 = <&b_grp_setting &c_grp_setting>;
>> }
>> The "c_grp_setting" config node is totaly same, maybe like following one:
>> c_grp_setting: c_grp_setting {
>>     pinctrl-single,pins = <GPIO48 AF6>;
>>     MFP_DEFAULT;
>> }
>> 3)When switching the Pin state in the following official Pinctrl
>> sequence:
>>     pin = pinctrl_get();
>>     state = pinctrl_lookup_state(wanted_state);
>>     pinctrl_select_state(state);
>>     pinctrl_put();
>>
>> Test Result:
>> 1)The switch is completed as expectation, that is: component's
>> Pins configuration are changed according to the description in the
>> "wanted_state" group setting
>> 2)The "desc->mux_usecount" of corresponding Pins in "c_group" is added
>> without being
>> decreased, because the "desc" is for each physical pin while the
>> "setting" is
>> for each setting node in the DTS.
>> Thus, if the "c_grp_setting" in pinctrl-0 is not disabled ahead of
>> enabling
>> "c_grp_setting" in pinctrl-1, the desc->mux_usecount will be kept
>> added without
>> any chance to be decreased.
>>
>> According to the comments in the original code, only the setting, in
>> old state
>> but not in new state, will be "disable"(calling
>> pinmux_disable_setting), which
>> is correct logic but not intact. We still need consider case that the
>> setting
>> is in both old state and new state.
>> We can do this in the following two ways:
>> 1) Avoid "enable"(calling pinmux_enable_setting) the Same Pins setting
>> repeatedly.
>> 2) "Disable"(calling pinmux_disable_setting) the "Same Pins setting",
>> actually
>> two setting instance, ahead of enabling them.
>>
>> Analysis:
>> 1.The solution 2# is better because it can avoid too much iteration.
>> 2.If we disable all of the setting in the old state and one/ones of
>> the setting(s) is/are
>> existed in the new state, the Pin's mux function change may happen when
>> some SoC vendors defined the "pinctrl-single,function-off" in their
>> DTS file.
>> old_setting=>disabled_setting=>new_setting.
>> 3.In the pinmux framework, when Pin state is switched, the setting in
>> the old state should be
>> marked as "disabled".
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> 1.To Remove the HW disabling operation to above the glitch mentioned
>> above.
>> 2.Handle the issue mentioned above by disabling all of the settings in
>> old
>> state and then enable the all of the settings in new state.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pinctrl/core.c   |   24 +++++-------------------
>>   drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c |    4 ----
>>   2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
>> index c0fe609..4445a67 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
>> @@ -989,29 +989,15 @@ int pinctrl_select_state(struct pinctrl *p,
>> struct pinctrl_state *state)
>>
>>       if (p->state) {
>>           /*
>> -         * The set of groups with a mux configuration in the old state
>> -         * may not be identical to the set of groups with a mux setting
>> -         * in the new state. While this might be unusual, it's entirely
>> -         * possible for the "user"-supplied mapping table to be written
>> -         * that way. For each group that was configured in the old state
>> -         * but not in the new state, this code puts that group into a
>> -         * safe/disabled state.
>> +         * For each pinmux setting in the old state, forget SW's record
>> +         * of mux owner for that pingroup. Any pingroups which are
>> +         * still owned by the new state will be re-acquired by the call
>> +         * to pinmux_enable_setting() in the loop below.
>>            */
>>           list_for_each_entry(setting, &p->state->settings, node) {
>> -            bool found = false;
>>               if (setting->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP)
>>                   continue;
>> -            list_for_each_entry(setting2, &state->settings, node) {
>> -                if (setting2->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP)
>> -                    continue;
>> -                if (setting2->data.mux.group ==
>> -                        setting->data.mux.group) {
>> -                    found = true;
>> -                    break;
>> -                }
>> -            }
>> -            if (!found)
>> -                pinmux_disable_setting(setting);
>> +            pinmux_disable_setting(setting);
>>           }
>>       }
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
>> index 9248ce4..c2c4aff 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
>> @@ -469,7 +469,6 @@ void pinmux_disable_setting(struct pinctrl_setting
>> const *setting)
>>   {
>>       struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev = setting->pctldev;
>>       const struct pinctrl_ops *pctlops = pctldev->desc->pctlops;
>> -    const struct pinmux_ops *ops = pctldev->desc->pmxops;
>>       int ret;
>>       const unsigned *pins;
>>       unsigned num_pins;
>> @@ -515,9 +514,6 @@ void pinmux_disable_setting(struct pinctrl_setting
>> const *setting)
>>                    pins[i], desc->name, gname);
>>           }
>>       }
>> -
>> -    if (ops->disable)
>> -        ops->disable(pctldev, setting->data.mux.func,
>> setting->data.mux.group);
>>   }
>>
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>>
>
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> Great thanks for your suggestion about the inline comments in the patch.
> I have updated the part you mentioned and the patch title.
> Please help to review again.
>
> Great to see that we almost get the goal of the long term discussion! :)
>
> After this patch is acknowledged by you Guys, I will submit the
> following two patches for you to review:
> 1.to remove the ops->disable registration in pinctrl-single
> 2.to remove the ops->disable function phandle in pinmux struct.
>
> Great thanks for this !
>

Dear Guys,

Do you have any comments about the new patch ?  Any suggestion is 
welcomed. :)

Looking forward your reply !
Great thanks for this !

Re: [PATCH v3] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux_setting for a pin

[Stephen Warren]

On 05/25/2014 08:43 PM, fwu@marvell.com wrote:
> From: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
> 
> What the patch did:
> 1.To call pinmux_disable_setting ahead of pinmux_enable_setting in each time of
>   calling pinctrl_select_state
> 2.Remove the HW disable operation in in pinmux_disable_setting function.
...

This commit description is way too long for such a simple change. A much
shorter summary would be better.

> Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>

I'm pretty sure I never signed off on this patch. How come my s-o-b line
is there?

This patch still doesn't remove ops->disable from the struct pinmux_ops,
nor any of its implementations. Shouldn't it?

Re: [PATCH v3] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux_setting for a pin

[FanWu]

On 05/30/2014 03:19 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/25/2014 08:43 PM, fwu@marvell.com wrote:
>> From: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
>>
>> What the patch did:
>> 1.To call pinmux_disable_setting ahead of pinmux_enable_setting in each time of
>>    calling pinctrl_select_state
>> 2.Remove the HW disable operation in in pinmux_disable_setting function.
> ...
>
> This commit description is way too long for such a simple change. A much
> shorter summary would be better.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>
> I'm pretty sure I never signed off on this patch. How come my s-o-b line
> is there?
>
> This patch still doesn't remove ops->disable from the struct pinmux_ops,
> nor any of its implementations. Shouldn't it?
>

Dear Stephen,

For your comments 1: The reason why I want to put a lot of info into the 
patch comments is that the long term discussion about the topic and the 
patch is not that easy to understand for a patch reader, or maybe is not 
easy for us to understand in far future.

For your comments 2: I accepted your suggestion of inline code comments 
and some other suggestions from our discussion, so I added your signed 
off tailing in the patch comments.
If you think it is not fine, I can remove it in the new patch version.

For your comments 3:
I think I have made myself clear in the last mail:
1) If I remove the ops->disable from the struct pinmux_ops in this 
patch, the pinctrl-single user will got build error immediately.
2) Thus, I want to merge this patch first and then make other two 
patches later:
One is to remove the ops->disable registration in pinctrl-single driver.
And the other is to remove ops->disable in struct pinmux_ops.

Could you please give your final suggestion about this and then I will 
give new patch?

Great thanks about this! :)

Looking forward your reply !