public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 --]

  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