Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: trigger: Use standard attr for sampling frequency

[Daniel Baluta]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/18/2015 04:04 PM, Daniel Baluta wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/03/15 12:48, Daniel Baluta wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/12/2015 09:16 AM, Octavian Purdila wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Baluta
>>>>>> <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As written in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio the trigger
>>>>>>> attribute for sampling frequency should be sampling_frequency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fix this for iio-trig-periodic-rtc module in order to prepare it
>>>>>>> for moving out of staging.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> Jonathan, this module is very useful for devices that do not have
>>>>>>> an interrupt pin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are working on drivers for such devices and would be very nice to
>>>>>>> move this driver in advance to the IIO non-staging location.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you say?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, I wonder what are the advantages of using RTC timers. Couldn't we
>>>>>> use a regular kernel timer instead?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The long term plan is to get rid of the RTC timer trigger due to its
>>>>> various
>>>>> limitations (poor resolution, etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> There is the hrtimer trigger
>>>>>
>>>>> (https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/blob/xcomm_zynq/drivers/staging/iio/trigger/iio-trig-hrtimer.c)
>>>>> but we haven't agreed on a proper interface yet how to instantiate the
>>>>> hrtimer trigger.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check the ml archive for the various discussions on it:
>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&w=2&r=1&s=hrtimer&q=b
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Lars,
>>>>
>>>> That was an interesting reading. There were people trying to push
>>>>   hrtimer based IIO trigger 4 years ago :).
>>>>
>>>> I think it's now the time to have this upstream.
>>>>
>>>> I will be back :) (as many others said before) with an RFC patch.
>>>>
>>>> I think we should keep the following requirements:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Create a common framework for software based triggers.
>>>> 2) User space driven configuration for trigger instances,
>>>> as opposed to platform device files used for RTC based trigger
>>>> 3) Remove RTC interrupt source, use hrtimers instead
>>>>
>>>> Still not clear, but I will trying to figure it out during
>>>> implementation:
>>>>
>>>> 4) configfs vs sysfs interface.
>>>>
>>>> At the first glance, I would say we should stay with sysfs interface in
>>>> order
>>>> to avoid another dependency. But let's see how it works.
>>>
>>> This issue with the sysfs only approach (as originally raised by Lars)
>>> is that it is actually very poorly suited to instantiating new elements
>>> of
>>> the device model.  Configfs was introduced in the first place exactly to
>>> cover this area.  We only ended up with the instantiation code in
>>> the sysfs trigger via sysfs because at the time (a good long while ago!)
>>> I wasn't aware of configfs.
>>>
>>> I have some initial work on the base elements on an iio configfs
>>> interface
>>> somewhere that I can dig out if you like.  I started working on it in a
>>> rare
>>> quiet period about a year ago, but never got all that far.
>>>
>>> There aren't that many examples in tree of how to actually use configfs
>>> so it's a bit more of a learning curve than sysfs!
>>
>>
>> First notable problem with using configfs with IIO is boot time modules
>> loading.
>>
>> Because,
>>
>> * configs uses module_init(configfs_init);
>> * IIO uses subsys_initcall(iio_init);
>>
>> it is guaranteed that IIO will be loaded before configfs. Not fun! :)
>>
>> So for the moment I will not add configfs support directly into
>> industrialiio-core but in a separate module.
>
>
> Just fix configfs, that should clearly not be at the module init level.
>
> But keeping it in a separate module doesn't hurt either way.

Looking at drivers/fs all filesystems modules are at module init level.
I'll drop an email to fs folks :).

What if IIO core should be at module init core?

Daniel.
--
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/