On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/09/2017 21:53, Tim Harvey wrote:
PPS signals with very short pulse-widths can be missed if their state
changes by the time the interrupt handler reads the GPIO pin state.
To avoid this in the case where we are only looking for one edge we can
use the edge configuration for the pin state but fall back to reading the
pin if both edges are being watched.
I disagree. The "rising_edge" status should be get from the hardware and not
derived by an empirical computation. Or, at least, it should be specifically
activated by setting something like this:
pps {
pinctrl-names = "default";
pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_pps>;
gpios = <&gpio1 26 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
Yes-I-want-get-signal-status-in-an-epirical-way;
compatible = "pps-gpio";
status = "okay";
};
This setting should also print a warning in order to be clear for the user
that he/she should know what he/she is doing.
Then the code should check also the compatibility with property
"assert-falling-edge"...
Hi Rodolfo,
Do you agree with using the irq edge in general if/when it is
available to resolve the case where small pulse-widths can be caught?
I assumed because pps-gpio is the one configuring the irq based on
info->capture_clear and info->assert_falling_edge that that it made
sense to use that logic again when handling the interrupt but there is
likely a call I can make to determine the irq (edge) type based on the
irq.