Message ID | 20250129155525.663780-1-koichiro.den@canonical.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Introduce configfs-based interface for gpio-aggregator | expand |
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 4:56 PM Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@canonical.com> wrote: > > This RFC patch series proposes adding a configfs-based interface to > gpio-aggregator to address limitations in the existing 'new_device' > interface. > > The existing 'new_device' interface has several limitations: > > #1. No way to determine when GPIO aggregator creation is complete. > #2. No way to retrieve errors when creating a GPIO aggregator. > #3. No way to trace a GPIO line of an aggregator back to its > corresponding physical device. > #4. The 'new_device' echo does not indicate which virtual gpiochip.<N> > was created. > #5. No way to assign names to GPIO lines exported through an aggregator. > > Although issues #1 to #3 could technically be resolved easily without > configfs, using configfs offers a streamlined, modern, and extensible > approach, especially since gpio-sim and gpio-virtuser already utilize > configfs. > > This RFC patch series includes two commits: > > * [PATCH 1/2] implements the configfs interface and resolves the above > issues: > - #1, Wait for probe completion using a platform bus notifier, > in the same manner as gpio-virtuser. > - #2, Introduce a 'live' attribute (like gpio-virtuser/gpio-sim), > returning -ENXIO when probe fails. > - #3, Structure configfs directories to clearly map virtual lines to > physical ones. > - #4, Add a read-only 'dev_name' attribute exposing the platform bus > device name. > - #5, Allow users to set custom line names via a 'name' attribute. > > * [PATCH 2/2] provides documentation on using the new interface. > > > Koichiro Den (2): > gpio: aggregator: Introduce configfs interface > Documentation: gpio: document configfs interface for gpio-aggregator > > .../admin-guide/gpio/gpio-aggregator.rst | 86 +++ > drivers/gpio/gpio-aggregator.c | 673 +++++++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 757 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.45.2 > Hi! I love the idea! In fact I think I floated it in a discussion with Geert some time ago but never got around to working on it. I just glanced at the code and it looks nice and clean. I'd love to see some more improvements like using a common prefix for all internal symbols but it can be addressed in a separate series. I played a bit with the module and this is where I noticed some issues: 1. The sysfs interface must keep on working. The same command that works with mainline, fails for me with your patch. There's no error propagated to user-space, write() returns success and I only see: gpio-aggregator.0: probe with driver gpio-aggregator failed with error -12 in the kernel log. 2. I couldn't verify that it's not the case already but the code does not suggest it: IMO devices created with sysfs should appear in configfs. 3. I don't think the user should need to specify the number of lines to aggregate. That information should be automatically inferred from the number of lineX attributes they created instead. Also: if I create a line attribute without setting num_lines, the driver just crashes. In fact it seems any discrepancy between the number of lines specified and the naming convention of the line attribute causes a crash. 4. Writing 1 to live, when no lines to aggregate were specified, should fail. There's probably more but I haven't had a lot of time. In short: I'm very much in favor of adding this but it will require some work. Thanks, Bartosz
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:30:59AM GMT, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 4:56 PM Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > This RFC patch series proposes adding a configfs-based interface to > > gpio-aggregator to address limitations in the existing 'new_device' > > interface. > > > > The existing 'new_device' interface has several limitations: > > > > #1. No way to determine when GPIO aggregator creation is complete. > > #2. No way to retrieve errors when creating a GPIO aggregator. > > #3. No way to trace a GPIO line of an aggregator back to its > > corresponding physical device. > > #4. The 'new_device' echo does not indicate which virtual gpiochip.<N> > > was created. > > #5. No way to assign names to GPIO lines exported through an aggregator. > > > > Although issues #1 to #3 could technically be resolved easily without > > configfs, using configfs offers a streamlined, modern, and extensible > > approach, especially since gpio-sim and gpio-virtuser already utilize > > configfs. > > > > This RFC patch series includes two commits: > > > > * [PATCH 1/2] implements the configfs interface and resolves the above > > issues: > > - #1, Wait for probe completion using a platform bus notifier, > > in the same manner as gpio-virtuser. > > - #2, Introduce a 'live' attribute (like gpio-virtuser/gpio-sim), > > returning -ENXIO when probe fails. > > - #3, Structure configfs directories to clearly map virtual lines to > > physical ones. > > - #4, Add a read-only 'dev_name' attribute exposing the platform bus > > device name. > > - #5, Allow users to set custom line names via a 'name' attribute. > > > > * [PATCH 2/2] provides documentation on using the new interface. > > > > > > Koichiro Den (2): > > gpio: aggregator: Introduce configfs interface > > Documentation: gpio: document configfs interface for gpio-aggregator > > > > .../admin-guide/gpio/gpio-aggregator.rst | 86 +++ > > drivers/gpio/gpio-aggregator.c | 673 +++++++++++++++++- > > 2 files changed, 757 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.45.2 > > > > Hi! Hi, thank you for reviewing. > > I love the idea! In fact I think I floated it in a discussion with > Geert some time ago but never got around to working on it. > > I just glanced at the code and it looks nice and clean. I'd love to > see some more improvements like using a common prefix for all internal > symbols but it can be addressed in a separate series. > > I played a bit with the module and this is where I noticed some issues: > > 1. The sysfs interface must keep on working. The same command that > works with mainline, fails for me with your patch. There's no error > propagated to user-space, write() returns success and I only see: > > gpio-aggregator.0: probe with driver gpio-aggregator failed with error -12 It looks like the issue is caused by gpiochip_fwd_line_names(). I'll fix it. > > in the kernel log. > > 2. I couldn't verify that it's not the case already but the code does > not suggest it: IMO devices created with sysfs should appear in > configfs. That makes sense, I'll add the implementation. > > 3. I don't think the user should need to specify the number of lines > to aggregate. That information should be automatically inferred from > the number of lineX attributes they created instead. [...] I agree that it's essentially unnecessary, but considering the current state of gpio-sim's configfs, having the user set num_lines doesn't seem too unnatural to me. What do you think? > [...] Also: if I create > a line attribute without setting num_lines, the driver just crashes. > In fact it seems any discrepancy between the number of lines specified > and the naming convention of the line attribute causes a crash. My bad.. thanks for pointing it out. > > 4. Writing 1 to live, when no lines to aggregate were specified, should fail. Agreed, I'll address this. > > There's probably more but I haven't had a lot of time. > > In short: I'm very much in favor of adding this but it will require some work. > > Thanks, > Bartosz I'd appreciate a response to one question above. I'll prepare v2 after. Thanks again! -Koichiro
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 7:40 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote: > > While at it: there's no reason to impose a > naming convention of lineX, lineY etc., the names don't matter for the > aggregator setup (unlike gpio-sim where they indicate the offset of > the line they concern). > Scratch that part. There's a good reason for that - the ordering of lines within the aggregator. I'm just not sure whether we should impose a strict naming where - for an aggregator of 3 lines total - we expect there to exist groups named line0, line1 and line2 or if we should be more lenient and possibly sort whatever names the user provides alphabetically? Bart