Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] iio: magnetometer: Add driver support for PNI RM3100 | From | Song Qiang <> | Date | Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:39:10 +0800 |
| |
On 2018/11/2 下午5:24, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 15:55:27 +0800 > Song Qiang <songqiang1304521@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2018/10/21 下午10:14, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:24:15 +0800 >>> Song Qiang <songqiang1304521@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> +static irqreturn_t rm3100_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + struct iio_poll_func *pf = p; >>>>>> + struct iio_dev *indio_dev = pf->indio_dev; >>>>>> + unsigned long scan_mask = *indio_dev->active_scan_mask; >>>>>> + unsigned int mask_len = indio_dev->masklength; >>>>>> + struct rm3100_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev); >>>>>> + struct regmap *regmap = data->regmap; >>>>>> + int ret, i, bit; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + mutex_lock(&data->lock); >>>>>> + switch (scan_mask) { >>>>>> + case BIT(0) | BIT(1) | BIT(2): >>>>>> + ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MX2, data->buffer, 9); >>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock); >>>>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>>>> + goto done; >>>>>> + break; >>>>>> + case BIT(0) | BIT(1): >>>>>> + ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MX2, data->buffer, 6); >>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock); >>>>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>>>> + goto done; >>>>>> + break; >>>>>> + case BIT(1) | BIT(2): >>>>>> + ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MY2, data->buffer, 6); >>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock); >>>>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>>>> + goto done; >>>>>> + break; >>>>> What about BIT(0) | BIT(2)? >>>>> >>>>> Now you can do it like you have here and on that one corner case let the iio core >>>>> demux code take care of it, but then you will need to provide available_scan_masks >>>>> so the core knows it needs to handle this case. >>>>> >>>> This confused me a little. The available_scan_masks I was using is {BIT(0) | >>>> BIT(1) | BIT(2), 0x0}. Apparently in this version of patch I would like it to >>>> handle every circumstances like BIT(0), BIT(0) | BIT(2), BIT(1) | BIT(2), etc. >>>> Since Phil mentioned he would like this to reduce bus usage as much as we can >>>> and I want it, too, I think these three circumstances can be read consecutively >>>> while others can be read one axis at a time. So I plan to let BIT(0) | BIT(2) >>>> fall into the 'default' section, which reads axis one by one. >>>> >>>> My question is, since this handles every possible combination, do I still need >>>> to list every available scan masks in available_scan_masks? >>> Ah. I see, I'd missed that the default was picking up that case as well as the >>> single axes. It would be interesting to sanity check if it is quicker on >>> a 'typical' platform to do the all axis read for the BIT(0) | BIT(2) case >>> and drop the middle value (which would be done using available scan_masks) >>> or to just do two independent reads. >>> >>> (I would guess it is worth reading the 'dead' axis). >>> >>>> All other problems will be fixed in the next patch. >>>> >>>> yours, >>>> >>>> Song Qiang >>>> >>>> >>>> ... >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jonathan >> I tested this two ways of getting data with the following code snippet: >> >> >> u8 buffer[9]; >> struct timeval timebefore, timeafter; >> >> do_gettimeofday(&timebefore); >> ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MX2, buffer, 9); >> if (ret < 0) >> goto unlock_return; >> do_gettimeofday(&timeafter); >> printk(KERN_INFO "read with dead axis time: %ld", >> timeafter.tv_sec * 1000000 + timeafter.tv_usec - >> timebefore.tv_sec * 1000000 - timebefore.tv_usec); >> do_gettimeofday(&timebefore); >> >> ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MX2, buffer, 3); >> if (ret < 0) >> goto unlock_return; >> ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MZ2, buffer + 6, 3); >> if (ret < 0) >> goto unlock_return; >> do_gettimeofday(&timeafter); >> printk(KERN_INFO "read two single axis time: %ld", >> timeafter.tv_sec * 1000000 + timeafter.tv_usec - >> timebefore.tv_sec * 1000000 - timebefore.tv_usec); >> >> >> And get this result: >> >> [ 161.264777] read with dead axis time: 883 >> [ 161.270621] read two single axis time: 1359 >> [ 161.575134] read with dead axis time: 852 >> [ 161.580973] read two single axis time: 1356 >> [ 161.895704] read with dead axis time: 854 >> [ 161.903744] read two single axis time: 3540 >> [ 162.223600] read with dead axis time: 853 >> [ 162.229451] read two single axis time: 1363 >> [ 162.591227] read with dead axis time: 850 >> [ 162.597630] read two single axis time: 1555 >> [ 162.920102] read with dead axis time: 852 >> [ 162.926467] read two single axis time: 1534 >> [ 163.303121] read with dead axis time: 881 >> [ 163.308997] read two single axis time: 1390 >> [ 163.711004] read with dead axis time: 861 >> >> >> It seems like you're right! Reading consecutively 9 bytes does save a lot time >> compared to read 3 bytes twice. >> > I've done this stuff before ;) We had this on the adis16365 parts back > in the early days of IIO. A worse case as it has a lot more channels, > but otherwise similar from what I recall. > > It would be an interesting exercise to trace those paths and find out the > balance between real hardware stuff we can't change and potential software > overheads. > > Chances are this is mostly 'real' stuff though but would be great to > confirm this. It's been on my list of things to do for years (not on > this driver obviously but in general)... > > Jonathan > I think I can try to use ftrace to trace it's flow path on my platform. I don't familiar with it, may need some time.
yours,
Song Qiang
| |