[PATCH 1/2] gpio: omap: return error if requested debounce time is not possible
David Rivshin
drivshin at awxrd.com
Fri Mar 17 16:42:35 PDT 2017
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:43:56 -0500
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko at ti.com> wrote:
> On 03/17/2017 03:50 PM, David Rivshin wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:54:28 -0500
> > Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko at ti.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/17/2017 12:54 PM, David Rivshin wrote:
> >>> Hi Grygorii,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:45:56 -0500
> >>> Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko at ti.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 03/16/2017 07:57 PM, David Rivshin wrote:
> >>>>> From: David Rivshin <DRivshin at allworx.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> omap_gpio_debounce() does not validate that the requested debounce
> >>>>> is within a range it can handle. Instead it lets the register value
> >>>>> wrap silently, and always returns success.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This can lead to all sorts of unexpected behavior, such as gpio_keys
> >>>>> asking for a too-long debounce, but getting a very short debounce in
> >>>>> practice.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fix this by returning -EINVAL if the requested value does not fit into
> >>>>> the register field. If there is no debounce clock available at all,
> >>>>> return -ENOTSUPP.
> >>>>
> >>>> In general this patch looks good, but there is one thing I'm worry about..
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: e85ec6c3047b ("gpio: omap: fix omap2_set_gpio_debounce")
> >>>>> Cc: <stable at vger.kernel.org> # 4.3+
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: David Rivshin <drivshin at allworx.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> >>>>> index efc85a2..33ec02d 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
> >>>>> @@ -208,8 +208,10 @@ static inline void omap_gpio_dbck_disable(struct gpio_bank *bank)
> >>>>> * OMAP's debounce time is in 31us steps
> >>>>> * <debounce time> = (GPIO_DEBOUNCINGTIME[7:0].DEBOUNCETIME + 1) x 31
> >>>>> * so we need to convert and round up to the closest unit.
> >>>>> + *
> >>>>> + * Return: 0 on success, negative error otherwise.
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> -static void omap2_set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank, unsigned offset,
> >>>>> +static int omap2_set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank, unsigned offset,
> >>>>> unsigned debounce)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> void __iomem *reg;
> >>>>> @@ -218,11 +220,12 @@ static void omap2_set_gpio_debounce(struct gpio_bank *bank, unsigned offset,
> >>>>> bool enable = !!debounce;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if (!bank->dbck_flag)
> >>>>> - return;
> >>>>> + return -ENOTSUPP;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if (enable) {
> >>>>> debounce = DIV_ROUND_UP(debounce, 31) - 1;
> >>>>> - debounce &= OMAP4_GPIO_DEBOUNCINGTIME_MASK;
> >>>>> + if ((debounce & OMAP4_GPIO_DEBOUNCINGTIME_MASK) != debounce)
> >>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>>
> >>>> This might cause boot issues as current drivers may expect this op to succeed even if
> >>>> configured value is wrong - just think, may be we can do warn here and use max value as
> >>>> fallback?
> >>>
> >>> I have not looked through all drivers to be sure, but at least the gpio-keys
> >>> driver requires set_debounce to return an error if it can't satisfy the request.
> >>> In that case gpio-keys will use a software timer instead.
> >>>
> >>> if (button->debounce_interval) {
> >>> error = gpiod_set_debounce(bdata->gpiod,
> >>> button->debounce_interval * 1000);
> >>> /* use timer if gpiolib doesn't provide debounce */
> >>> if (error < 0)
> >>> bdata->software_debounce =
> >>> button->debounce_interval;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Also, at least some other GPIO drivers (e.g. gpio-max7760) return -EINVAL in
> >>> such a case. And gpiolib will return -ENOTSUPP if there is no debounce
> >>> callback at all. So I expect all drivers which use gpiod_set_debounce() to
> >>> handle error returns gracefully.
> >>>
> >>> So I certainly understand the concern about backwards compatibility, but I
> >>> think clipping to max is the greater of the evils in this case. Even a
> >>> warning may be too much, because it's not necessarily anything wrong.
> >>> Perhaps an info or debug message would be helpful, though?
> >>>
> >>> If you prefer, I can try to go through all callers of gpiod_set_debounce()
> >>> and see how they'd handle an error return. The handful I've looked through so
> >>> far all behave like gpio-keys. The only ones I'd be particularly concerned
> >>> about are platform-specific drivers which were perhaps never used with other
> >>> gpio drivers. Do you know of that I should pay special attention to?
> >>
> >> Yeh agree. But the problem here will be not only with drivers itself - it can be wrong data in DT :(
> >> As result, even gpio-keys driver will just silently switch to software_debounce
> >> without any notification.
> >
> > I think that switching to software_debounce silently is exactly the
> > intended/desired behavior of gpio-keys (and other drivers). For example,
> > if the DT requests a 20ms debounce on a gpio-key, the existing math
> > resulted in a hardware debounce of just 2ms. With the error return,
> > gpio-keys would silently switch to software_debounce of the requested
> > 20ms (potentially longer if the CPU is busy, but I don't think that's
> > a problem for correctness), exactly what the DT asked for.
> >
> > Of course that would be a change in behavior for any such existing DT,
> > and it's conceivable that the DT for some HW is somehow relying on that
> > previous incorrect behavior. I suspect it's more likely that they are
> > silently broken, and no-one has noticed. A quick search of some in-tree
> > DTs finds most debounce times are 5ms (which has no issue), and then
> > these three examples (all happen to be gpio-keys):
> > am335x-shc.dts: debounce-interval = <1000>;
> > am335x-shc.dts: debounce-interval = <1000>;
> > omap5-uevm.dts: debounce_interval = <50>;
> > The first two currently result in a HW debounce of about 4ms. The
> > third would be 2.5ms, except it's the wrong property name so it
> > does nothing (it gets the default gpio-keys debounce of 5ms).
>
> Yep. looks like error in dt. There are mod such DTs actually
> ./arch/arm/boot/dts/atlas7-evb.dts
> ./arch/arm/boot/dts/emev2-kzm9d.dts
> ./arch/arm/boot/dts/kirkwood-pogoplug-series-4.dts
> ./arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5-uevm.dts
> ./arch/arm/boot/dts/ste-snowball.dts
Ah yes, I just grepped for 'debounce' in am* and omap*. I guess
that typo has been copied over from DT to DT. I'm tempted to spin
a patch correcting the typo, but I have no knowledge of those
boards or HW to test with. Obviously no-one has complained about
the 5ms vs 50ms debounce so far, so maybe 50ms isn't the correct
number in the first place?
> >
> > Not having seen any of that hardware, I can't say for certain what the
> > true HW requirements are. 1000ms does seem like a long debounce, perhaps
> > the author meant 1ms (1000us) for those buttons? Or perhaps it really
> > needs a 1000ms debounce, and is currently wrong?
> >
> >>
> >> But agree - max might not be a good choose, so can you add dev_err() below, pls.
> >
> > Given the above, I personally feel that a dev_err() is undesirable in most
> > cases. If I have a system and matching DT that just happens to need a longer
> > debounce than the GPIO HW is capable of, gpio-keys (etc) does the best it can automatically. I don't consider that there is any error in that case, or
> > anything to be fixed.
> > I can understanding wanting to draw attention to a change in behavior (just
> > in case the DT is incorrect), but I'd personally lean towards dev_info() if
> > anything.
> >
> > That said: if you still prefer dev_err(), I will certainly do so.
>
> Fair enough :) thanks.
>
> Acked-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko at ti.com>
Just to make sure I don't misunderstand, would you like me to:
A) put in a dev_err()
B) put in a dev_info()
C) leave it as-is without any message
?
I can spin a v2 as early as Monday, depending on the results of discussion
on the second patch.
>
> >
> > Tangent:
> > This discussion makes me think that adding a gpiod_get_max_debounce()
> > would allow even better behavior. Then asking for a too-high debounce
> > could be a dev_err() in all gpio drivers, with the expectation that no
> > driver should ask for such. Also, drivers could do something like use
> > max hardware debounce plus a software debounce for the remaining time,
> > in order to avoid CPU overhead on short glitches.
> >
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list