Re: [RFC 02/11] drivers: Add HTE subsystem

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 21:38:45 -0700
Dipen Patel <dipenp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 7/4/21 1:15 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:55:23 -0700
> > Dipen Patel <dipenp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  
> >> Some devices can timestamp system lines/signals/Buses in real-time
> >> using the hardware counter or other hardware means which can give
> >> finer granularity and help avoid jitter introduced by software means
> >> of timestamping. To utilize such functionality there has to be
> >> framework where such devices can register themselves as producers or
> >> providers so that the consumers or clients devices can request specific
> >> line from the providers. This patch introduces such subsystem as
> >> hardware timestamping engine (HTE).
> >>
> >> It provides below APIs for the provider:
> >> - hte_register_chip() -- To register the HTE chip.
> >> - hte_unregister_chip() -- To unregister the HTE chip.
> >> - hte_push_ts_ns_atomic() -- To push timestamp data into HTE subsystem.
> >>
> >> It provides below APIs for the consumer:
> >> - of_hte_request_ts() -- To request timestamp functionality.
> >> - devm_of_hte_request_ts() -- Managed version of the above.
> >> - hte_req_ts_by_dt_node() -- To request timestamp functionality by
> >> using HTE provider dt node.
> >> - devm_hte_release_ts() -- The managed version to release timestamp
> >> functionality and associated resources.
> >> - hte_retrieve_ts_ns() -- To retrieve timestamps.
> >> - hte_retrieve_ts_ns_wait() -- Same as above but blocking version.
> >> - hte_enable_ts() -- To disable timestamp functionality.
> >> - hte_disable_ts() -- To enable timestamp functionality.
> >> - hte_available_ts() -- To query available timestamp data.
> >> - hte_release_ts() -- To release timestamp functionality and its
> >> associated resources.
> >> - hte_get_clk_src_info() -- To query clock source information from
> >> the provider
> >>
> >> It provides centralized software buffer management per requested id to
> >> store the timestamp data for the consumers as below:
> >> - hte_set_buf_len() -- To set the buffer length.
> >> - hte_get_buf_len() -- To get the buffer length.
> >> - hte_set_buf_watermark() -- To set the software threshold/watermark.
> >> - hte_get_buf_watermark() -- To get the software threshold/watermark.
> >>
> >> The detail about parameters and API usage are described in each
> >> functions definitions in drivers/hte/hte.c file.
> >>
> >> The patch adds compilation support in Makefile and menu options in
> >> Kconfig.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dipen Patel <dipenp@xxxxxxxxxx>  
> > Hi Dipen, this isn't a particularly thorough review as I'm still getting my head
> > around what this is doing + it is an RFC :)  
> Thanks for the review comments. My responses inline.

You are welcome, some follow up responses inline.
I've tried to crop this down a bit so only kept the bits we are discussing.

> >> +
> >> +static int hte_ts_dis_en_common(struct hte_ts_desc *desc, bool en)
> >> +{
> >> +	u32 ts_id;
> >> +	struct hte_device *gdev;
> >> +	struct hte_ts_info *ei;
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +
> >> +	if (!desc)
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> +	ei = (struct hte_ts_info *)desc->data_subsys;  
> > As above, no need to cast - though it rather implies the type of data_subsys
> > should not be void *.  
> 
> desc is public facing structure, I wanted to make subsystem related
> 
> information opaque that is why I had it void *.
> 

you can keep it opaque, just have a forwards definition of
struct hte_ts_desc;
which just means it is defined somewhere.  You can have that in the header with
the definition hidden away.

It will only need to have a visible complete definition when you dereference it inside
the the core.

Mind you, I'm suggesting allowing it to be embedded in another structure anyway which
would require you to have it exposed.  Perhaps this desire to keep it opaque is
a reason to not take that suggestion but it isn't relevant for this one.


> >> + */
> >> +struct hte_ts_desc *devm_of_hte_request_ts(struct device *dev,
> >> +					   const char *label,
> >> +					   void (*cb)(enum hte_notify n))
> >> +{
> >> +
> >> +	struct hte_ts_desc **ptr, *desc;
> >> +
> >> +	ptr = devres_alloc(__devm_hte_release_ts, sizeof(*ptr), GFP_KERNEL);  
> > Superficially looks like you might get way with just calling dev_add_action_or_reset() in here
> > and avoid this boilerplate.  A lot of cases that looked like this got cleaned up in the
> > last kernel cycle.  
> I based my patches from linux-next/master. Not sure if that has
> 
> dev_add_action_or_reset

typo on my part was meant to be

devm_add_action_or_reset()

> 
> >

> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * hte_req_ts_by_dt_node() - Request entity to monitor by passing HTE device
> >> + * node directly, where meaning of the entity is provider specific, for example
> >> + * lines, signals, GPIOs, buses etc...
> >> + *
> >> + * @of_node: HTE provider device node.
> >> + * @id: entity id to monitor, this id belongs to HTE provider of_node.
> >> + * @cb: Optional callback to notify.
> >> + *
> >> + * Context: Holds mutex lock, can not be called from atomic context.  
> > What mutex and why?  If it is one you can check is held even better.  
> 
> ___hte_req_ts holds the mutex lock to serialize multiple consumers
> 
> requesting same entity.

Add that detail to the comment.

> 
> >  
> >> + * Returns: ts descriptor on success or error pointers.
> >> + */
> >> +struct hte_ts_desc *hte_req_ts_by_dt_node(struct device_node *of_node,
> >> +					  unsigned int id,
> >> +					  void (*cb)(enum hte_notify n))
> >> +{
> >> +	struct hte_device *gdev;
> >> +	struct hte_ts_desc *desc;
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +	u32 xlated_id;
> >> +
> >> +	gdev = of_node_to_htedevice(of_node);
> >> +	if (IS_ERR(gdev))
> >> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);
> >> +
> >> +	if (!gdev->chip || !gdev->chip->ops)
> >> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);
> >> +
> >> +	desc = kzalloc(sizeof(*desc), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	if (!desc) {
> >> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> >> +		goto out_put_device;
> >> +	}  
> > Pass a desc pointer into this function rather than allocating the structure
> > in here.  That lets the caller embed that structure inside one of it's own
> > structures if it wants to, resulting in fewer small allocations which is always good.
> >
> > It's far from obvious that the caller needs to free desc.  
> 
> Are you suggesting to shift burden of allocation/deallocation (static or dynamic)
> 
> at client/consumer side?

It's been a while so I've forgotten how this works, but 'probably' yes...
If a function creates some sort of record (of fixed known size and type) then
letting that be passed in + filled in by the function is normally more efficient
than having an allocation in here.   Chances are the consumer will just have
it embedded in an existing state structure and not need to do any explicit
allocation / deallocation.  Disadvantage is you can't keep it opaque.

> 
> >  
> >> +
> >> +	desc->con_id = id;
> >> +	ret = gdev->chip->xlate(gdev->chip, NULL, desc, &xlated_id);
> >> +	if (ret < 0) {
> >> +		dev_err(gdev->chip->dev,
> >> +			"failed to xlate id: %d\n", id);
> >> +		goto out_free_desc;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	ret = ___hte_req_ts(gdev, desc, xlated_id, cb);
> >> +	if (ret < 0) {
> >> +		dev_err(gdev->chip->dev,
> >> +			"failed to request id: %d\n", id);
> >> +		goto out_free_desc;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	return desc;
> >> +
> >> +out_free_desc:
> >> +	kfree(desc);
> >> +
> >> +out_put_device:
> >> +	return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hte_req_ts_by_dt_node);
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * hte_get_clk_src_info() - Consumer calls this API to query clock source
> >> + * information of the desc.
> >> + *
> >> + * @desc: ts descriptor, same as returned from request API.
> >> + *
> >> + * Context: Any context.
> >> + * Returns: 0 on success else negative error code on failure.
> >> + */
> >> +int hte_get_clk_src_info(const struct hte_ts_desc *desc,
> >> +			 struct hte_clk_info *ci)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct hte_chip *chip;
> >> +	struct hte_ts_info *ei;
> >> +
> >> +	if (!desc || !desc->data_subsys || !ci) {
> >> +		pr_debug("%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	ei = desc->data_subsys;
> >> +	if (!ei || !ei->gdev || !ei->gdev->chip)
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> +	chip = ei->gdev->chip;
> >> +	if (!chip->ops->get_clk_src_info)
> >> +		return -ENOTSUPP;
> >> +
> >> +	return chip->ops->get_clk_src_info(chip, ci);
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hte_get_clk_src_info);
> >> +
> >> +static inline void hte_add_to_device_list(struct hte_device *gdev)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct hte_device *prev;  
> > Needs to take an appropriate lock as you may have concurrent calls.  
> 
> There is spin_lock held from register API from where this gets
> called.

Great. I'd missed that.

> 
> >  
> >> +
> >> +	if (list_empty(&hte_devices)) {
> >> +		list_add_tail(&gdev->list, &hte_devices);  
> > Needs a comment. I've no idea why you might want to only add it if there were
> > no other hte_devices already there.
> >  
> >> +		return;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	prev = list_last_entry(&hte_devices, struct hte_device, list);  
> > Why woud you do this?  
> 
> Thanks for pointing out. I definitely missed cleaning this up. Now, I will
> 
> remove this function in next RFC version as one line can be added directly
> 
> in register API.
> 
> >  
> >> +	list_add_tail(&gdev->list, &hte_devices);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * hte_push_ts_ns_atomic() - Used by the provider to push timestamp in nano
> >> + * seconds i.e data->tsc will be in ns, it is assumed that provider will be
> >> + * using this API from its ISR or atomic context.
> >> + *
> >> + * @chip: The HTE chip, used during the registration.
> >> + * @xlated_id: entity id understood by both subsystem and provider, usually this
> >> + * is obtained from xlate callback during request API.
> >> + * @data: timestamp data.
> >> + * @n: Size of the data.
> >> + *
> >> + * Context: Atomic.
> >> + * Returns: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
> >> + */
> >> +int hte_push_ts_ns_atomic(const struct hte_chip *chip, u32 xlated_id,
> >> +			  struct hte_ts_data *data, size_t n)
> >> +{
> >> +	unsigned int ret;
> >> +	bool notify;
> >> +	size_t el_avail;
> >> +	struct hte_ts_buf *buffer;
> >> +	struct hte_ts_info *ei;
> >> +
> >> +	if (!chip || !data || !chip->gdev)
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> +	if (xlated_id > chip->nlines)
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> +	ei = &chip->gdev->ei[xlated_id];
> >> +
> >> +	if (!test_bit(HTE_TS_REGISTERED, &ei->flags) ||
> >> +	    test_bit(HTE_TS_DISABLE, &ei->flags)) {
> >> +		dev_dbg(chip->dev, "Unknown timestamp push\n");
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	/* timestamp sequence counter, start from 0 */
> >> +	data->seq = ei->seq++;
> >> +
> >> +	buffer = ei->buf;
> >> +	el_avail = buffer->access->el_available(buffer);
> >> +	ret = buffer->access->store(buffer, data, n);  
> > If we are doing this from the hte core, why is buffer definition in the scope of the
> > drivers rather than the core?  That seems backwards to me.  
> 
> I do not understand this comment. The buffer definition is in scope of hte core
> 
> as it is the only entity that manages it.

I think I figured that out later and forgot to come back and edit this comment.
However...

In that case, why is it an ops function?  Don't introduce abstraction
until you need it. Will be simpler and easier to review if you just
call those functions directly for now. e.g.

	ret = hs_ts_store_to_buf(buffer, data, n);

Chances are you'll never introduce another buffer choice.
For a long time I thought we'd have both fifo and ring options in IIO
but it turned out no one really cared. We do have an ops structure, but
that's because in IIO the buffer interface is used for two things:
1) Pushing to a kfifo that is going to userspace.
2) Pushing to a callback function owned by a consumer.
and there is a rather fiddly data demux on the front end to ensure each
of those only gets the data requested via that path - at least with timestamps
there is only one type of data!

Hmm, thinking about this raises an interesting question.
Why do we want a kfifo here at all for HTE?  You could
just call a callback function registered by the consumer of that
kfifo directly.  If that consumer then wants to buffer then of
course it can, but it not (perhaps it only cares about the latest
value and will drop the rest) then it can chose not to.  Maybe
it's just gathering stats rather than caring about individual
timestamps?  Probably lots of other things that might happen in
the consumer that I've not thought of.  We need a buffer if
userspace becomes involved, but here IIRC that's not (yet) true.

> 
> >  
> >> +	if (ret != n) {
> >> +		atomic_inc(&ei->dropped_ts);
> >> +		if (ei->cb)
> >> +			ei->cb(HTE_TS_DROPPED);
> >> +		return -ENOMEM;
> >> +	}

...

> >  
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * struct hte_ts_data - HTE timestamp data.
> >> + * The provider uses and fills timestamp related details during push_timestamp
> >> + * API call. The consumer uses during retrieve_timestamp API call.
> >> + *
> >> + * @tsc: Timestamp value.
> >> + * @seq: Sequence counter of the timestamps.
> >> + * @dir: Direction of the event at the time of timestamp.
> >> + */
> >> +struct hte_ts_data {
> >> +	u64 tsc;
> >> +	u64 seq;
> >> +	int dir;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * struct hte_clk_info - Clock source info that HTE provider uses.
> >> + * The provider uses hardware clock as a source to timestamp real time. This
> >> + * structure presents the clock information to consumers. 
> >> + *
> >> + * @hz: Clock rate in HZ, for example 1KHz clock = 1000.
> >> + * @type: Clock type. CLOCK_* types.  
> > So this is something we got a it wrong in IIO. It's much better to define
> > a subset of clocks that can be potentially used.  There are some that make
> > absolutely no sense and consumers really don't want to have to deal with them.  
> Is there anything I have to change here?

Yes - specify which clocks would make sense.  You might not need to explicitly
allow only those, but that might also be worthwhile. Otherwise, the chances are
you'll end up with a bunch of special purpose code in consumers on the basis
they might get CLOCK_TAI or similar and have to deal with it.
As for exactly which clocks do make sense, that's one which may take some figuring
out. Probably REALTIME, MONOTONIC and BOOTTIME depending on whether you care
what happens when the time of the system gets adjusted, or whether it carries
on measuring time across suspend.   Very application dependent but there are some
you can definitely rule out. Don't repeat my mistake of leaving it vague
(which incidentally was a follow up to picking a silly clock to use for timestamps
 before we allowed it to be configured).

> >    
> >> + */
> >> +struct hte_clk_info {
> >> +	u64 hz;
> >> +	clockid_t type;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * HTE subsystem notifications for the consumers.
> >> + *
> >> + * @HTE_TS_AVAIL: Timestamps available notification.
> >> + * @HTE_TS_DROPPED: Timestamps dropped notification.  
> > Something I've missed so far is whether drops are in a kfifo or a ring
> > fashion.  I'm guess that's stated somewhere, but it might be useful to have
> > it here.  
> Dropped are from kfifo if kfifo does not have space.

Ok, perhaps expand the comment?

...

> 
> >  
> >> + *
> >> + * xlated_id parameter is used to communicate between HTE subsystem and the
> >> + * providers. It is the same id returned during xlate API call and translated
> >> + * by the provider. This may be helpful as both subsystem and provider locate
> >> + * the requested entity in constant time, where entity could be anything from
> >> + * lines, signals, events, buses etc.. that providers support.
> >> + */
> >> +struct hte_ops {
> >> +	int (*request)(struct hte_chip *chip, u32 xlated_id);
> >> +	int (*release)(struct hte_chip *chip, u32 xlated_id);
> >> +	int (*enable)(struct hte_chip *chip, u32 xlated_id);
> >> +	int (*disable)(struct hte_chip *chip, u32 xlated_id);
> >> +	int (*get_clk_src_info)(struct hte_chip *chip,
> >> +				struct hte_clk_info *ci);
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * struct hte_chip - Abstract HTE chip structure.
> >> + * @name: functional name of the HTE IP block.
> >> + * @dev: device providing the HTE.  
> > Unclear naming.  Is this the parent device, or one associated with the HTE itself?
> > I'm guessing today you don't have one associated with the HTE, but it is plausible you
> > might gain on in future to make it fit nicely in the device model as a function of another
> > device.  
> 
> This is provider's device, could be &pdev->dev or any dev provider deems fit hence the
> 
> generic name.

Ok, for now this works as a name, but I wonder if you will end up growing another
layer in the device model as would happen for majority of subsystems.
You may end up doing so when adding support to query the provider via a handle
in the dt of the consumer.  It could probably be avoided, but throwing this into
a class might make your life easier as you can use more standard infrastructure.

> 
> >  
> >> + * @ops: callbacks for this HTE.
> >> + * @nlines: number of lines/signals supported by this chip.
> >> + * @xlate: Callback which translates consumer supplied logical ids to
> >> + * physical ids, return from 0 for the success and negative for the
> >> + * failures. It stores (0 to @nlines) in xlated_id parameter for the success.
> >> + * @of_hte_n_cells: Number of cells used to form the HTE specifier.
> >> + * @gdev: HTE subsystem abstract device, internal to the HTE subsystem.
> >> + * @data: chip specific private data.
> >> + */
> >> +struct hte_chip {
> >> +	const char *name;
> >> +	struct device *dev;
> >> +	const struct hte_ops *ops;
> >> +	u32 nlines;
> >> +	int (*xlate)(struct hte_chip *gc,
> >> +		     const struct of_phandle_args *args,
> >> +		     struct hte_ts_desc *desc, u32 *xlated_id);
> >> +	u8 of_hte_n_cells;
> >> +
> >> +	/* only used internally by the HTE framework */
> >> +	struct hte_device *gdev;
> >> +	void *data;
> >> +};
...

Jonathan