Re: iio: Is storing output values to non volatile registers something we should do automatically or leave to userspace action. [was Re: [PATCH] iio: potentiometer: max5432: update the non-volatile pos
On 19/08/2019 03:32, Jonathan Cameron wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:08:12 +0800 Phil Reid wrote: G'day Martin / Jonathan, On 12/08/2019 18:37, Martin Kaiser wrote: Hi Jonathan, Thus wrote Jonathan Cameron (ji...@kernel.org): The patch is fine, but I'm wondering about whether we need some element of policy control on this restore to current value. A few things to take into account. * Some devices don't have a non volatile store. So userspace will be responsible for doing the restore on reboot. * This may be one of several related devices, and it may make no sense to restore this one if the others aren't going to be in the same state as before the reboot. * Some devices only have non volatile registers for this sort of value (or save to non volatile on removal of power). Hence any policy to not store the value can't apply to this class of device. I see your point. You'd like a consistent bahaviour across all potentiometer drivers. Or at least a way for user space to figure out whether a chip uses non-volatile storage or not. This property doesn't quite fit into the channel info that are defined in the arrays in drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c. Is there any other way to set such a property? My initial thought is that these probably don't matter that much and we should apply this, but I would like to seek input from others! I thought there were some other drivers doing similar store to no volatile but I can't find one. drivers/iio/potentiometer/max5481.c and max5487.c do something similar. They use a command to transfer the setting from volatile to non-volatile register in the spi remove function. I guess that the intention is to save the current setting when the system is rebooted. However, my understanding is that the remove function is called only when a module is unloaded or when user space does explicitly unbind the device from the bus via sysfs. That's why I tried using the shutdown function instead. Still, this approach has some disadvantages. For many systems, there's a soft reboot (shutdown -r) where the driver's shutdown function is called and a "hard reboot" where the power from the CPU and the potentiometer chip is removed and reapplied. In this case, the current value would not be transfered to the non-volatile register. At least for the max5432 family, there's no way to read the current setting. The only option for user space to have a well-defined setting is to set the wiper position explicitly at startup. I guess the only sensible way to use a non-volatile register would be a write operation where user space gets a response about successful completion. We could have two channels to write to the volatile or to non-volatile register. Or we stick to one channel and update both volatile and non-volatile registers when user space changes the value. This assumes that the setting does not change frequently, which is prabably not true for all applications... I'm not keen on multiple channels as that is a fairly non obvious interface. Definitely want to avoid writing all the time. Whatever we come up with, we should at least make the max* chips behave the same way. The AD5272/AD5274 Digital Rheostat has a 50-times limit for programming the NV register. So you want to be real sure that you want to set it. Ouch, I new some were limited to a few thousand cycles, but 50 is rather nasty! I'd rather my system default to a known "safe" value for next boot than set to whatever the last write was. So some kind of policy on setting this would be nice. I personally think it's something that userspace should initiate via an explicit command. Agreed. I think we should look at an explicit write. Perhaps an extra attribute on the channels? Hence a shared_by_all version could be used when there is only one write command. Yes, now the only question is what should it be called. Writing the NV for the AD5272 is something I planned to add at some stage. But so far the default factory values have worked ok. It'd be nice for cross device consistency for any interface for this. Agreed. This is an area that crept up on me, so we haven't enforced any consistency on it yet. However, we definitely should! Thanks, Jonathan -- Regards Phil Reid
Re: iio: Is storing output values to non volatile registers something we should do automatically or leave to userspace action. [was Re: [PATCH] iio: potentiometer: max5432: update the non-volatile pos
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:08:12 +0800 Phil Reid wrote: > G'day Martin / Jonathan, > > On 12/08/2019 18:37, Martin Kaiser wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, > > > > Thus wrote Jonathan Cameron (ji...@kernel.org): > > > >> The patch is fine, but I'm wondering about whether we need some element > >> of policy control on this restore to current value. > > > >> A few things to take into account. > > > >> * Some devices don't have a non volatile store. So userspace will be > >>responsible for doing the restore on reboot. > >> * This may be one of several related devices, and it may make no sense > >>to restore this one if the others aren't going to be in the same > >>state as before the reboot. > >> * Some devices only have non volatile registers for this sort of value > >>(or save to non volatile on removal of power). Hence any policy to > >>not store the value can't apply to this class of device. > > > > I see your point. You'd like a consistent bahaviour across all > > potentiometer drivers. Or at least a way for user space to figure out > > whether a chip uses non-volatile storage or not. > > This property doesn't quite fit into the channel info that are defined > > in the arrays in drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c. Is there any other way > > to set such a property? > > > >> My initial thought is that these probably don't matter that much and > >> we should apply this, but I would like to seek input from others! > > > >> I thought there were some other drivers doing similar store to no > >> volatile but I can't find one. > > > > drivers/iio/potentiometer/max5481.c and max5487.c do something similar. > > > > They use a command to transfer the setting from volatile to non-volatile > > register in the spi remove function. I guess that the intention is to > > save the current setting when the system is rebooted. However, my > > understanding is that the remove function is called only when a module > > is unloaded or when user space does explicitly unbind the device from > > the bus via sysfs. That's why I tried using the shutdown function > > instead. > > > > Still, this approach has some disadvantages. For many systems, there's a > > soft reboot (shutdown -r) where the driver's shutdown function is called > > and a "hard reboot" where the power from the CPU and the potentiometer > > chip is removed and reapplied. In this case, the current value would not > > be transfered to the non-volatile register. > > > > At least for the max5432 family, there's no way to read the current > > setting. The only option for user space to have a well-defined setting > > is to set the wiper position explicitly at startup. > > > > I guess the only sensible way to use a non-volatile register would be a > > write operation where user space gets a response about successful > > completion. > > > > We could have two channels to write to the volatile or to non-volatile > > register. Or we stick to one channel and update both volatile and > > non-volatile registers when user space changes the value. This assumes > > that the setting does not change frequently, which is prabably not true > > for all applications... I'm not keen on multiple channels as that is a fairly non obvious interface. Definitely want to avoid writing all the time. > > > > Whatever we come up with, we should at least make the max* chips behave > > the same way. > > > The AD5272/AD5274 Digital Rheostat has a 50-times limit for programming the > NV register. > So you want to be real sure that you want to set it. Ouch, I new some were limited to a few thousand cycles, but 50 is rather nasty! > > I'd rather my system default to a known "safe" value for next boot than > set to whatever the last write was. So some kind of policy on setting this > would > be nice. I personally think it's something that userspace should initiate via > an explicit > command. Agreed. I think we should look at an explicit write. Perhaps an extra attribute on the channels? Hence a shared_by_all version could be used when there is only one write command. > > Writing the NV for the AD5272 is something I planned to add at some stage. > But so far the default factory values have worked ok. > It'd be nice for cross device consistency for any interface for this. > Agreed. This is an area that crept up on me, so we haven't enforced any consistency on it yet. However, we definitely should! Thanks, Jonathan
Re: iio: Is storing output values to non volatile registers something we should do automatically or leave to userspace action. [was Re: [PATCH] iio: potentiometer: max5432: update the non-volatile pos
G'day Martin / Jonathan, On 12/08/2019 18:37, Martin Kaiser wrote: Hi Jonathan, Thus wrote Jonathan Cameron (ji...@kernel.org): The patch is fine, but I'm wondering about whether we need some element of policy control on this restore to current value. A few things to take into account. * Some devices don't have a non volatile store. So userspace will be responsible for doing the restore on reboot. * This may be one of several related devices, and it may make no sense to restore this one if the others aren't going to be in the same state as before the reboot. * Some devices only have non volatile registers for this sort of value (or save to non volatile on removal of power). Hence any policy to not store the value can't apply to this class of device. I see your point. You'd like a consistent bahaviour across all potentiometer drivers. Or at least a way for user space to figure out whether a chip uses non-volatile storage or not. This property doesn't quite fit into the channel info that are defined in the arrays in drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c. Is there any other way to set such a property? My initial thought is that these probably don't matter that much and we should apply this, but I would like to seek input from others! I thought there were some other drivers doing similar store to no volatile but I can't find one. drivers/iio/potentiometer/max5481.c and max5487.c do something similar. They use a command to transfer the setting from volatile to non-volatile register in the spi remove function. I guess that the intention is to save the current setting when the system is rebooted. However, my understanding is that the remove function is called only when a module is unloaded or when user space does explicitly unbind the device from the bus via sysfs. That's why I tried using the shutdown function instead. Still, this approach has some disadvantages. For many systems, there's a soft reboot (shutdown -r) where the driver's shutdown function is called and a "hard reboot" where the power from the CPU and the potentiometer chip is removed and reapplied. In this case, the current value would not be transfered to the non-volatile register. At least for the max5432 family, there's no way to read the current setting. The only option for user space to have a well-defined setting is to set the wiper position explicitly at startup. I guess the only sensible way to use a non-volatile register would be a write operation where user space gets a response about successful completion. We could have two channels to write to the volatile or to non-volatile register. Or we stick to one channel and update both volatile and non-volatile registers when user space changes the value. This assumes that the setting does not change frequently, which is prabably not true for all applications... Whatever we come up with, we should at least make the max* chips behave the same way. The AD5272/AD5274 Digital Rheostat has a 50-times limit for programming the NV register. So you want to be real sure that you want to set it. I'd rather my system default to a known "safe" value for next boot than set to whatever the last write was. So some kind of policy on setting this would be nice. I personally think it's something that userspace should initiate via an explicit command. Writing the NV for the AD5272 is something I planned to add at some stage. But so far the default factory values have worked ok. It'd be nice for cross device consistency for any interface for this. -- Regards Phil Reid
