Re: Reply to [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] Adding support for IIO SCMI based sensors

[Cristian Marussi]

On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 02:36:45PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 11:26:59 +0000
> Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 10:29:17AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 23:09:20 +0000
> > > Jyoti Bhayana <jbhayana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > Hi Jonathan,
> > > >   
> > > > > So, sensor_max_range can effectively be exposed as a combination of
> > > > > scale and the *_raw_avail for a raw read (via the read_avail callback in IIO).
> > > > > We'll ignore the fact the interface assumes a single value (so I assume symmetric?)    
> > > > 
> > > > Based on the SCMI specification the sensor min range and max range are 64 bits signed number.
> > > > 
> > > > looks like IIO_AVAIL_RANGE can only take the following
> > > > types of data which all looks like 32 bit. IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL
> > > > also takes two int type numbers.
> > > > How can I send 64 bit sensor range using this and read_avail callback?
> > > > 
> > > > #define IIO_VAL_INT 1
> > > > #define IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO 2
> > > > #define IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_NANO 3
> > > > #define IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO_DB 4
> > > > #define IIO_VAL_INT_MULTIPLE 5
> > > > #define IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL 10
> > > > #define IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2 11
> > > > #define IIO_VAL_CHAR 12  
> > > 
> > > Hmm It is a bit unfortunate that SCMI decided to pretend that real sensor resolutions were
> > > greater than 32 bits. I doubt they will ever actually be any (as such accurate measurements
> > > are completely pointless) and they aren't anywhere near that today.  Only way it might end
> > > up looking a bit like that would be result of a highly non linear sensor being shoved through
> > > an interface that pretends it isn't (goody).
> > >   
> > 
> > We shared this info internally to involve our architects about this.
> > 
> > > Having said that, specifications are what they are and we have to cope with that.
> > > 
> > > There is no real problem with defining a new value type except for the fact that any
> > > legacy userspace won't necessarily expect to see values that large. Given we need the full
> > > 64 bits it would have to be something like
> > > IIO_VAL_INT_H32_L32 with the 64 bit values split up appropriately and put back together
> > > at time of formatting.   Not particularly pretty but I'm not keep to put that much effort
> > > in to support something like this for one driver (so not interesting in changing that
> > > the read_raw_* interfaces)
> > >   
> > 
> > Regarding the current spec and this IIODEV limit to 32bit, I was thinking about
> > the following horrid thing (:D) as a solution: given that as of now no sensor
> > exist in real life reporting bigger than 32bits values, instead of adding new
> > defines in IIODEV framework to support 64bit that no userspace is expecting and
> > no sensor will really emit ever in the foreseable future, couldn't this SCMI
> > IIODEV driver simply:
> > 
> > - truncate silently straight away 64bit vals into 32bit when detects
> >   that he upper MSB 32bit are unused (zeros or sign-extension) and in
> >   fact the values fits into 32bits
> > 
> > - WARN and do not truncate if the upper MSB 32bit are in fact valid because
> >   such a 64bit capable sensor was indeed used finally (at that point in time
> >   IIODEV driver and framework will need a 64bit update)
> > 
> > Or I am missing something ?
> > 
> > Feel free to insult me about this hack ... :D 
> 
> I had a similar thought :)  But every time we do something like this someone
> does something crazy like right shifting the value by 24 bits or similar.
> Warning should make it obvious if we need to paper over this though.

Not sure to have understood where this right shift could be done...on
sysfs output values you mean ?

It is pretty similar (only conceptually) to what happened with SCMIv3.0
Voltage and SCMI regulator: Voltage protocol supports negative voltages
representation to be generic enough to handle any kind of regulators
while regulator framework does NOT support negatives as of now (being mostly
used in a digital context AFAICU), so the SCMI regulator driver refuses to
handle any SCMI exposed voltage domain which declares itself as supporting
negative voltages. (and emit a pr_warn)

I was thinking around the same lines here, given that each SCMI sensor/axis
is exposed and described also by a descriptor containing scmi_range_attrs
(a min/max_range 64bit values), the SCMI IIODEV driver could simply skip them
at initialization time when it see an unsupported range and just do not expose
such an iiodev, but warn: this way nothing potentially representing something
greater than 32bit would even appear in sysfs.
(But I'm far from having a decent knowledge of IIO so I could be missing
something ovious here).

Thanks

Cristian

> 
> But I'm not sure it matters in reality as this is mostly hidden away inside
> the kernel.   The exposure of these values is limited to:
> 1) In kernel users - probably aren't any current ones for these sensors.
> 2) Passing to the pretty print functions that produce sysfs values.
>    The risk here is existing userspace may fail to parse a number that needs
>    more than 32 bits as it's never seen one before.
>    However, if the numbers happen to be smaller it will be fine.  So we are storing
>    up potential esoteric bugs for a long time in the future.  Hopefully any such
>    userspace will report an error though!
> 
> If we do support this, I would ask that we also add a channel to the
> dummy driver to allow us to easily exercise relevant code paths without having
> to emulate everything needed to fake devices behind SCMI (docs on how to do that
> would be good as well if there are any (assuming there is public code that does
> this by now!) :)
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Cristian
> > 
> > > Jonathan
> > >  
> > >   
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jyoti
> > > >   
> > >   
>