From: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
To: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] counter/ti-eqep: add support for latched position
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:44:15 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YXkDT2gaFfdIsgTQ@shinobu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211017013343.3385923-6-david@lechnology.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4056 bytes --]
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 08:33:40PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> This adds support to the TI eQEP counter driver for a latched position.
> This is a new extension that gets the counter count that was recorded
> when an event was triggered. A new device-level latch_mode attribute is
> added to select the trigger. Edge capture unit support will be needed
> to make full use of this, but "Unit timeout" mode can already be used
> to calculate high speeds.
>
> The unit timer could also have attributes for latched_time and
> latched_period that use the same trigger. However this is not a use
> case at this time, so they can be added later if needed.
I see that "latched_count" holds the captured counter count; would this
"latched_time" hold the captured unit timer time? If so, does that mean
setting the latch mode to "Unit timeout" always results in a
"latched_time" equal to 0 (assuming that's when the timeout event
triggers)?
>
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> ---
> drivers/counter/ti-eqep.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/counter/ti-eqep.c b/drivers/counter/ti-eqep.c
> index 1ba7f3c7cb7e..ef899655ad1d 100644
> --- a/drivers/counter/ti-eqep.c
> +++ b/drivers/counter/ti-eqep.c
> @@ -405,12 +405,28 @@ static int ti_eqep_direction_read(struct counter_device *counter,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int ti_eqep_position_latched_count_read(struct counter_device *counter,
> + struct counter_count *count,
> + u64 *value)
> +{
> + struct ti_eqep_cnt *priv = counter->priv;
> + u32 qposlat;
> +
> + regmap_read(priv->regmap32, QPOSLAT, &qposlat);
> +
> + *value = qposlat;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static struct counter_comp ti_eqep_position_ext[] = {
> COUNTER_COMP_CEILING(ti_eqep_position_ceiling_read,
> ti_eqep_position_ceiling_write),
> COUNTER_COMP_ENABLE(ti_eqep_position_enable_read,
> ti_eqep_position_enable_write),
> COUNTER_COMP_DIRECTION(ti_eqep_direction_read),
> + COUNTER_COMP_COUNT_U64("latched_count",
> + ti_eqep_position_latched_count_read, NULL),
> };
>
> static struct counter_signal ti_eqep_signals[] = {
> @@ -463,6 +479,38 @@ static struct counter_count ti_eqep_counts[] = {
> },
> };
>
> +static int ti_eqep_latch_mode_read(struct counter_device *counter,
> + u32 *value)
> +{
> + struct ti_eqep_cnt *priv = counter->priv;
> + u32 qepctl;
> +
> + regmap_read(priv->regmap16, QEPCTL, &qepctl);
> + *value = !!(qepctl & QEPCTL_QCLM);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int ti_eqep_latch_mode_write(struct counter_device *counter,
> + u32 value)
> +{
> + struct ti_eqep_cnt *priv = counter->priv;
> +
> + if (value)
> + regmap_set_bits(priv->regmap16, QEPCTL, QEPCTL_QCLM);
> + else
> + regmap_clear_bits(priv->regmap16, QEPCTL, QEPCTL_QCLM);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const char *const ti_eqep_latch_mode_names[] = {
> + "Read count",
> + "Unit timeout",
> +};
> +
> +static DEFINE_COUNTER_ENUM(ti_eqep_latch_modes, ti_eqep_latch_mode_names);
> +
> static int ti_eqep_unit_timer_time_read(struct counter_device *counter,
> u64 *value)
> {
> @@ -553,6 +601,8 @@ static int ti_eqep_unit_timer_enable_write(struct counter_device *counter,
> }
>
> static struct counter_comp ti_eqep_device_ext[] = {
> + COUNTER_COMP_DEVICE_ENUM("latch_mode", ti_eqep_latch_mode_read,
> + ti_eqep_latch_mode_write, ti_eqep_latch_modes),
It seems more appropriate to move this alongside "latched_count" as
Count extension because this is setting the trigger mode to latch the
respective Count's count. Or does this particular extension also affect
the "latched_time" capture for the unit timer?
William Breathitt Gray
> COUNTER_COMP_DEVICE_U64("unit_timer_time", ti_eqep_unit_timer_time_read,
> ti_eqep_unit_timer_time_write),
> COUNTER_COMP_DEVICE_U64("unit_timer_period",
> --
> 2.25.1
>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-27 7:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-17 1:33 [PATCH 0/8] counter: ti-eqep: implement features for speed measurement David Lechner
2021-10-17 1:33 ` [PATCH 1/8] counter/ti-eqep: implement over/underflow events David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:10 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-25 7:13 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-27 15:23 ` David Lechner
2021-10-28 6:41 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17 1:33 ` [PATCH 2/8] counter/ti-eqep: add support for direction David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-25 7:29 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17 1:33 ` [PATCH 3/8] counter/ti-eqep: add support for unit timer David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:20 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-25 8:48 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-27 15:28 ` David Lechner
2021-10-28 7:48 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-28 13:42 ` David Lechner
2021-10-30 8:35 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17 1:33 ` [PATCH 4/8] docs: counter: add unit timer sysfs attributes David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:23 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-27 6:46 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-27 15:30 ` David Lechner
2021-10-28 7:59 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-30 16:40 ` David Lechner
2021-11-01 4:08 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-11-01 5:27 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17 1:33 ` [PATCH 5/8] counter/ti-eqep: add support for latched position David Lechner
2021-10-27 7:44 ` William Breathitt Gray [this message]
2021-10-27 15:40 ` David Lechner
2021-10-28 8:12 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17 1:33 ` [PATCH 6/8] docs: counter: add latch_mode and latched_count sysfs attributes David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:26 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-27 7:54 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-27 17:00 ` David Lechner
2021-10-30 1:32 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-30 14:39 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-11-01 5:11 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-17 1:33 ` [PATCH 7/8] counter/ti-eqep: add support for edge capture unit David Lechner
2021-10-17 11:29 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-10-27 8:23 ` William Breathitt Gray
2021-10-27 17:28 ` David Lechner
2021-10-17 1:33 ` [PATCH 8/8] docs: counter: add edge_capture_unit_* attributes David Lechner
2021-10-27 8:26 ` William Breathitt Gray
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=YXkDT2gaFfdIsgTQ@shinobu \
--to=vilhelm.gray@gmail.com \
--cc=david@lechnology.com \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robertcnelson@gmail.com \
/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