On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 15:55:27 +0800
Song Qiang <songqiang1304...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2018/10/21 下午10:14, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:24:15 +0800
> > Song Qiang <songqiang1304...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >>>> +static irqreturn_t rm3100_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct iio_poll_func *pf = p;
> >>>> + struct iio_dev *indio_dev = pf->indio_dev;
> >>>> + unsigned long scan_mask = *indio_dev->active_scan_mask;
> >>>> + unsigned int mask_len = indio_dev->masklength;
> >>>> + struct rm3100_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >>>> + struct regmap *regmap = data->regmap;
> >>>> + int ret, i, bit;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> >>>> + switch (scan_mask) {
> >>>> + case BIT(0) | BIT(1) | BIT(2):
> >>>> + ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MX2,
> >>>> data->buffer, 9);
> >>>> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> >>>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>>> + goto done;
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + case BIT(0) | BIT(1):
> >>>> + ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MX2,
> >>>> data->buffer, 6);
> >>>> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> >>>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>>> + goto done;
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + case BIT(1) | BIT(2):
> >>>> + ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MY2,
> >>>> data->buffer, 6);
> >>>> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> >>>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>>> + goto done;
> >>>> + break;
> >>> What about BIT(0) | BIT(2)?
> >>>
> >>> Now you can do it like you have here and on that one corner case let the
> >>> iio core
> >>> demux code take care of it, but then you will need to provide
> >>> available_scan_masks
> >>> so the core knows it needs to handle this case.
> >>>
> >> This confused me a little. The available_scan_masks I was using is {BIT(0)
> >> |
> >> BIT(1) | BIT(2), 0x0}. Apparently in this version of patch I would like it
> >> to
> >> handle every circumstances like BIT(0), BIT(0) | BIT(2), BIT(1) | BIT(2),
> >> etc.
> >> Since Phil mentioned he would like this to reduce bus usage as much as we
> >> can
> >> and I want it, too, I think these three circumstances can be read
> >> consecutively
> >> while others can be read one axis at a time. So I plan to let BIT(0) |
> >> BIT(2)
> >> fall into the 'default' section, which reads axis one by one.
> >>
> >> My question is, since this handles every possible combination, do I still
> >> need
> >> to list every available scan masks in available_scan_masks?
> > Ah. I see, I'd missed that the default was picking up that case as well as
> > the
> > single axes. It would be interesting to sanity check if it is quicker on
> > a 'typical' platform to do the all axis read for the BIT(0) | BIT(2) case
> > and drop the middle value (which would be done using available scan_masks)
> > or to just do two independent reads.
> >
> > (I would guess it is worth reading the 'dead' axis).
> >
> >>
> >> All other problems will be fixed in the next patch.
> >>
> >> yours,
> >>
> >> Song Qiang
> >>
> >>
> >> ...
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> I tested this two ways of getting data with the following code snippet:
>
>
> u8 buffer[9];
> struct timeval timebefore, timeafter;
>
> do_gettimeofday(&timebefore);
> ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MX2, buffer, 9);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto unlock_return;
> do_gettimeofday(&timeafter);
> printk(KERN_INFO "read with dead axis time: %ld",
> timeafter.tv_sec * 1000000 + timeafter.tv_usec -
> timebefore.tv_sec * 1000000 - timebefore.tv_usec);
> do_gettimeofday(&timebefore);
>
> ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MX2, buffer, 3);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto unlock_return;
> ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, RM3100_REG_MZ2, buffer + 6, 3);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto unlock_return;
> do_gettimeofday(&timeafter);
> printk(KERN_INFO "read two single axis time: %ld",
> timeafter.tv_sec * 1000000 + timeafter.tv_usec -
> timebefore.tv_sec * 1000000 - timebefore.tv_usec);
>
>
> And get this result:
>
> [ 161.264777] read with dead axis time: 883
> [ 161.270621] read two single axis time: 1359
> [ 161.575134] read with dead axis time: 852
> [ 161.580973] read two single axis time: 1356
> [ 161.895704] read with dead axis time: 854
> [ 161.903744] read two single axis time: 3540
> [ 162.223600] read with dead axis time: 853
> [ 162.229451] read two single axis time: 1363
> [ 162.591227] read with dead axis time: 850
> [ 162.597630] read two single axis time: 1555
> [ 162.920102] read with dead axis time: 852
> [ 162.926467] read two single axis time: 1534
> [ 163.303121] read with dead axis time: 881
> [ 163.308997] read two single axis time: 1390
> [ 163.711004] read with dead axis time: 861
>
>
> It seems like you're right! Reading consecutively 9 bytes does save a lot
> time
> compared to read 3 bytes twice.
>
I've done this stuff before ;) We had this on the adis16365 parts back
in the early days of IIO. A worse case as it has a lot more channels,
but otherwise similar from what I recall.
It would be an interesting exercise to trace those paths and find out the
balance between real hardware stuff we can't change and potential software
overheads.
Chances are this is mostly 'real' stuff though but would be great to
confirm this. It's been on my list of things to do for years (not on
this driver obviously but in general)...
Jonathan
