lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-bindings: iio: introduce trigger providers, consumers
From
Date
On 05/03/17 11:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 03/03/17 06:21, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 05:51:14PM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
>>> Document iio provider and consumer bindings.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@st.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt
>>> index 68d6f8c..01765e9 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt
>>> @@ -95,3 +95,41 @@ vdd channel is connected to output 0 of the &ref device.
>>> io-channels = <&adc 10>, <&adc 11>;
>>> io-channel-names = "adc1", "adc2";
>>> };
>>> +
>>> +==IIO trigger providers==
>>> +Sources of IIO triggers can be represented by any node in the device
>>> +tree. Those nodes are designated as IIO trigger providers. IIO trigger
>>> +consumer uses a phandle and an IIO trigger specifier to connect to an
>>> +IIO trigger provider.
>>> +An IIO trigger specifier is an array of one or more cells identifying
>>> +the IIO trigger output on a device. The length of an IIO trigger
>>> +specifier is defined by the value of a #io-trigger-cells property in
>>> +the IIO trigger provider node.
>>> +
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +#io-trigger-cells:
>>> + Number of cells in an IIO trigger specifier; Typically
>>> + 0 for nodes with a simple IIO trigger output.
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> + trig0: interrupt-trigger0 {
>>> + #io-trigger-cells = <0>;
>>> + compatible = "interrupt-trigger";
>>> + interrupts = <11 0>;
>>> + interrupt-parent = <&gpioa>;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> +==IIO trigger consumers==
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +- io-triggers: List of phandle representing the IIO trigger specifier.
>>> +
>>> +Optional properties:
>>> +- io-trigger-names :
>>> + List of IIO trigger name strings that matches elements
>>> + in 'io-triggers' list property.
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> + some_trigger_consumer {
>>> + io-triggers = <&trig0>;
>>> + io-trigger-names = "mytrig";
>>> + }
>>
>> I have some reservations about this. We could just as easily add the
>> interrupt directly to the consumer node and use "trigger" for a standard
>> interrupt name. So the question is whether this extra level of
>> indirection is needed?
>
> First thing to note here, is that Fabrice's use of the generic interrupt
> trigger is an extremely 'unusual' one! Normal use case is that we have
> a random gpio pin providing interrupts to driver triggering on random
> devices - there need be no association between the two whatsoever.
> So what we are doing here is 'allowing' an interrupt to provide a trigger.
> It's not necessarily the one going to be used by any particular device
> driver. The decision of which trigger to use is definitely one for
> userspace, not something that should be configured in to the device tree.
>
> For this particular case you could in theory just do it by using an interrupt
> as you describe. Ultimately though we should be able to play more complex
> games with this device and having it able to handle any trigger - which
> includes those not using the direct hardware route. It'll be up to the
> driver to figure out when it can use the fast method and when it can't.
>
> Conversely, even when we are using this hardware route to drive the
> triggering it should be possible to hang off a device to be triggered
> by the interrupt via the kernel rather than directly.
>
> So from a device tree point of view we are just describing the fact that
> there is a pin, which may be used to trigger something. What that something
> is, is a question for userspace not the device tree.
>
Ah, I'm half asleep this morning. Clearly there is a more general follow
up question. If we are arguing these are generic, why are we setting
up the mapping in device tree?

My gut feeling is we shouldn't be. So I think we need the first chunk
above but the latter part should be a job for userspace not the devicetree.

Jonathan
> Jonathan
>>
>> Rob
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-05 13:14    [W:0.073 / U:1.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site