RE: [PATCHv4 1/4] modem_shm: Add Modem Access Framework

[Arun MURTHY]

> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 07:30:38AM +0200, Arun MURTHY wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:35:01PM +0530, Arun Murthy wrote:
> > > > > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > > > > > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > > > +#include <linux/err.h>
> > > > > > +#include <linux/printk.h>
> > > > > > +#include <linux/modem_shm/modem.h>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static struct class *modem_class;
> > > > >
> > > > > What's wrong with a bus_type instead?
> > > >
> > > > Can I know the advantage of using bus_type over class?
> > >
> > > You have devices living on a bus, and it's much more descriptive
> > > than a class (which we are going to eventually get rid of one of these
> days...).
> > >
> > > Might I ask why you choose a class over a bus_type?
> >
> > Basically my requirement is to create a central entity for accessing
> > and releasing modem from APE.
> 
> What is an "APE"?
> 
> And what do you mean by "accessing" and "releasing"?

APE - Application Processor Engine
There are two processors but on a single chip, one being the APE and other
is the modem. So 'accessing' means requesting access or waking-up the
co-processor and releasing means allowing the co-processor to sleep.


> 
> > Since this is done by different clients the central entity should be
> > able to handle the request and play safely, since this has more affect
> > in system suspend and deep sleep. Using class helps me in achieving
> > this and also create an entry to user space which can be used in the
> > later parts. Moreover this not something like a bus or so, so I didn't
> > use bus instead went with a simple class approach.
> 
> But as you have devices that are "binding" to this "controller", a bus might
> make more sense, right?

Have explained above regarding the platform, the concept of bus doesn't
come into picture at all. Here its just waking-up the modem and allowing
it to go to sleep.

> 
> I don't see how a class helps out for you here more than anything else, what
> are you expecting from the class interface?  You aren't using the reference
> counting logic it provides, so why use it at all?

I am using the reference counting logic in class such as  class_for_each_device.

> 
> Actually, why use the driver core at all in the first place if you aren't needing
> the devices to show up in sysfs (as you don't have a device, you are just a
> mediator)?

Yes I am something like a mediator, but since this is associated with many
clients, there should be some central entity to take inputs from all the clients
and act accordingly. This MAF does that. Sysfs will also be created for this
MAF in the coming versions.

> 
> > > > > > +int modem_release(struct modem_desc *mdesc) {
> > > > > > +	if (!mdesc->release)
> > > > > > +		return -EFAULT;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	if (modem_is_requested(mdesc)) {
> > > > > > +		atomic_dec(&mdesc->mclients->cnt);
> > > > > > +		if (atomic_read(&mdesc->use_cnt) == 1) {
> > > > > > +			mdesc->release(mdesc);
> > > > > > +			atomic_dec(&mdesc->use_cnt);
> > > > > > +		}
> > > > >
> > > > > Eeek, why aren't you using the built-in reference counting that
> > > > > the struct device provided to you, and instead are rolling your own?
> > > > > This happens in many places, why?
> > > >
> > > > My usage of counters over here is for each modem there are many
> clients.
> > > > Each of the clients will have a ref to modem_desc. Each of them
> > > > use this for requesting and releasing the modem. One counter for
> > > > tracking the request and release for each client which is done by
> > > > variable 'cnt' in
> > > struct clients.
> > > > The counter use_cnt is used for tracking the modem request/release
> > > > irrespective of the clients and counter cli_cnt is used for
> > > > restricting the modem_get to the no of clients defined in no_clients.
> > > >
> > > > So totally 3 counter one for restricting the usage of modem_get by
> > > > clients, second for restricting modem request/release at top
> > > > level, and 3rd for restricting modem release/request for per
> > > > client per modem
> > > basis.
> > > >
> > > > Can you let me know if the same can be achieved by using built-in
> > > > ref counting?
> > >
> > > Yes, because you don't need all of those different levels, just
> > > stick with one and you should be fine. :)
> > >
> >
> > No, checks at all these levels are required, I have briefed out the need also.
> 
> I still don't understand, sorry.

The pictorial view by Anish should help in understanding.
           Modem                 Client1     Client2    Client3    Client4
State  turn-on                   request
State  no-state-change                     request
State  no-state-change                                   request
State  no-state-change				request
State  no-state-change      release
State  no-state-change                                   release
State  no-state-change                     release
State   turn-off					release

This is just a simple straight forward example.

> 
> > This will have effect on system power management, i.e suspend and deep
> > sleep.
> 
> How does power management matter?  If you tie into the driver model
> properly, power management comes "for free" so you don't have to do
> anything special about it.  Why not use that logic instead of trying to roll your
> own?

As said there are two processors on a single chip playing over here. One being
the APE(Application Processor Engine) and other is Modem. Since they are on
a single chip but for APE entering into deep sleep modem should be released.

> 
> > We restrict that the drivers should request modem only once and
> > release only once, but we cannot rely on the clients hence a check for
> > the same has to be done in the MAF.
> 
> You can't rely on the clients to do what?  And why can't you rely on them?
> What is going to happen?  Who is a "client" here?  Other kernel code?

Yes, let me take my driver itself as an example. Here the clients are the
shared memory driver, sim driver, security etc. Shared memory driver
is the communicating media between the APE and Modem and hence
needs to wake-up the modem and after completion should allow modem
to enter sleep.
Similarly it's the same for sim driver also.
We define that the clients such as shared memory driver and the sim
driver should request for modem only one and then release only once
and also since this is a MAF shouldn't it take care of checking the same?

> 
> I really don't understand your model at all as to what you are trying to
> mediate and manage here, sorry.  I suggest writing it all up as your first patch
> (documentation is good), so that we can properly review your
> implementation and not argue about how to implement something that I
> honestly don't understand.

Sorry for that. Actually my 4th patch in this patchset includes the documentation.
Since it's the kernel doc I have made it as the last patch in this patchset, else
kernel doc compilation will fail.
Please feel free to refer the 4th patch for the documentation part and if still
not clear I can provide more explanation on this.

> 
> > Also the no of clients should be defined and hence a check for the
> > same is done in MAF.
> 
> Defined where?  What is "MAF"?

This driver is MAF(Modem Access Framework).

> 
> > Apart from all these the requests coming from all the clients is to be
> > accumulated and based on that modem release or access should be
> > performed, hence so.
> 
> That sentance makes no sense to me, it must be too early for me here...

Thanks and Regards,
Arun R Murthy
-----------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/