diff mbox series

[v8,10/12] pps: generators: Add PPS Generator TIO Driver

Message ID 20240513103813.5666-11-lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series Add support for Intel PPS Generator | expand

Commit Message

D, Lakshmi Sowjanya May 13, 2024, 10:38 a.m. UTC
From: Lakshmi Sowjanya D <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com>

The Intel Timed IO PPS generator driver outputs a PPS signal using
dedicated hardware that is more accurate than software actuated PPS.
The Timed IO hardware generates output events using the ART timer.
The ART timer period varies based on platform type, but is less than 100
nanoseconds for all current platforms. Timed IO output accuracy is
within 1 ART period.

PPS output is enabled by writing '1' the 'enable' sysfs attribute. The
driver uses hrtimers to schedule a wake-up 10 ms before each event
(edge) target time. At wakeup, the driver converts the target time in
terms of CLOCK_REALTIME to ART trigger time and writes this to the Timed
IO hardware. The Timed IO hardware generates an event precisely at the
requested system time without software involvement.

Co-developed-by: Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>
Co-developed-by: Pandith N <pandith.n@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Pandith N <pandith.n@intel.com>
Co-developed-by: Thejesh Reddy T R <thejesh.reddy.t.r@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thejesh Reddy T R <thejesh.reddy.t.r@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Lakshmi Sowjanya D <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Eddie Dong <eddie.dong@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com>
---
 drivers/pps/generators/Kconfig       |  16 ++
 drivers/pps/generators/Makefile      |   1 +
 drivers/pps/generators/pps_gen_tio.c | 259 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 276 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/pps/generators/pps_gen_tio.c

Comments

Andy Shevchenko May 13, 2024, 11:18 a.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 04:08:11PM +0530, lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com wrote:
> From: Lakshmi Sowjanya D <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com>
> 
> The Intel Timed IO PPS generator driver outputs a PPS signal using
> dedicated hardware that is more accurate than software actuated PPS.
> The Timed IO hardware generates output events using the ART timer.
> The ART timer period varies based on platform type, but is less than 100
> nanoseconds for all current platforms. Timed IO output accuracy is
> within 1 ART period.
> 
> PPS output is enabled by writing '1' the 'enable' sysfs attribute. The
> driver uses hrtimers to schedule a wake-up 10 ms before each event
> (edge) target time. At wakeup, the driver converts the target time in
> terms of CLOCK_REALTIME to ART trigger time and writes this to the Timed
> IO hardware. The Timed IO hardware generates an event precisely at the
> requested system time without software involvement.

...

> +static ssize_t enable_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf,
> +			    size_t count)
> +{
> +	struct pps_tio *tio = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +	bool enable;
> +	int err;

(1)

> +	err = kstrtobool(buf, &enable);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&tio->lock);
> +	if (enable && !tio->enabled) {

> +		if (!timekeeping_clocksource_has_base(CSID_X86_ART)) {
> +			dev_err(tio->dev, "PPS cannot be started as clock is not related to ART");

Why not simply dev_err(dev, ...)?

> +			return -EPERM;
> +		}

I'm wondering if we can move this check to (1) above.
Because currently it's a good question if we are able to stop PPS which was run
by somebody else without this check done.

I.o.w. this sounds too weird to me and reading the code doesn't give any hint
if it's even possible. And if it is, are we supposed to touch that since it was
definitely *not* us who ran it.

> +		pps_tio_direction_output(tio);
> +		hrtimer_start(&tio->timer, first_event(tio), HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
> +		tio->enabled = true;
> +	} else if (!enable && tio->enabled) {
> +		hrtimer_cancel(&tio->timer);
> +		pps_tio_disable(tio);
> +		tio->enabled = false;
> +	}
> +	return count;
> +}

...

> +static int pps_tio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{

	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;

> +	struct pps_tio *tio;
> +
> +	if (!(cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_TSC_KNOWN_FREQ) &&
> +	      cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_ART))) {
> +		dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "TSC/ART is not enabled");

		dev_warn(dev, "TSC/ART is not enabled");

> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	}
> +
> +	tio = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*tio), GFP_KERNEL);

	tio = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*tio), GFP_KERNEL);


> +	if (!tio)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	tio->dev = &pdev->dev;

	tio->dev = dev;

> +	tio->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> +	if (IS_ERR(tio->base))
> +		return PTR_ERR(tio->base);

> +	pps_tio_disable(tio);

This...

> +	hrtimer_init(&tio->timer, CLOCK_REALTIME, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
> +	tio->timer.function = hrtimer_callback;
> +	spin_lock_init(&tio->lock);

> +	tio->enabled = false;

...and this should go together, which makes me look at the enabled flag over
the code and it seems there are a few places where you missed to sync it with
the reality.

I would think of something like this:

	pps_tio_direction_output() ==> true
	pps_tio_disable(tio) ==> false

where "==> X" means assignment of enabled flag.

And perhaps this:

	tio->enabled = pps_generate_next_pulse(tio, expires + SAFE_TIME_NS);
	if (!tio->enabled)
		...

But the above is just thinking out loudly, you may find the better approach(es).

> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, tio);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
Andy Shevchenko May 13, 2024, 11:20 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 02:18:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 04:08:11PM +0530, lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com wrote:

> > +	pps_tio_disable(tio);
> 
> This...

> > +	tio->enabled = false;
> 
> ...and this should go together, which makes me look at the enabled flag over
> the code and it seems there are a few places where you missed to sync it with
> the reality.
> 
> I would think of something like this:
> 
> 	pps_tio_direction_output() ==> true
> 	pps_tio_disable(tio) ==> false
> 
> where "==> X" means assignment of enabled flag.
> 
> And perhaps this:
> 
> 	tio->enabled = pps_generate_next_pulse(tio, expires + SAFE_TIME_NS);
> 	if (!tio->enabled)
> 		...
> 
> But the above is just thinking out loudly, you may find the better approach(es).

You might need to introduce pps_tio_enable() counterpart, in such case it would
be more natural to have enabled be assigned accordingly.
D, Lakshmi Sowjanya May 27, 2024, 11:48 a.m. UTC | #3
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:49 PM
> To: D, Lakshmi Sowjanya <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com>
> Cc: tglx@linutronix.de; jstultz@google.com; giometti@enneenne.com;
> corbet@lwn.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; x86@kernel.org;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-doc@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-
> lan@lists.osuosl.org; Dong, Eddie <eddie.dong@intel.com>; Hall, Christopher
> S <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>; Brandeburg, Jesse
> <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>; davem@davemloft.net;
> alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com; joabreu@synopsys.com;
> mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com; perex@perex.cz; linux-
> sound@vger.kernel.org; Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>;
> peter.hilber@opensynergy.com; N, Pandith <pandith.n@intel.com>; Mohan,
> Subramanian <subramanian.mohan@intel.com>; T R, Thejesh Reddy
> <thejesh.reddy.t.r@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 10/12] pps: generators: Add PPS Generator TIO Driver
> 
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 04:08:11PM +0530, lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com
> wrote:
> > From: Lakshmi Sowjanya D <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com>
> >
> > The Intel Timed IO PPS generator driver outputs a PPS signal using
> > dedicated hardware that is more accurate than software actuated PPS.
> > The Timed IO hardware generates output events using the ART timer.
> > The ART timer period varies based on platform type, but is less than
> > 100 nanoseconds for all current platforms. Timed IO output accuracy is
> > within 1 ART period.
> >
> > PPS output is enabled by writing '1' the 'enable' sysfs attribute. The
> > driver uses hrtimers to schedule a wake-up 10 ms before each event
> > (edge) target time. At wakeup, the driver converts the target time in
> > terms of CLOCK_REALTIME to ART trigger time and writes this to the
> > Timed IO hardware. The Timed IO hardware generates an event precisely
> > at the requested system time without software involvement.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static ssize_t enable_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute
> *attr, const char *buf,
> > +			    size_t count)
> > +{
> > +	struct pps_tio *tio = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +	bool enable;
> > +	int err;
> 
> (1)
> 
> > +	err = kstrtobool(buf, &enable);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&tio->lock);
> > +	if (enable && !tio->enabled) {
> 
> > +		if (!timekeeping_clocksource_has_base(CSID_X86_ART)) {
> > +			dev_err(tio->dev, "PPS cannot be started as clock is
> not related
> > +to ART");
> 
> Why not simply dev_err(dev, ...)?
> 
> > +			return -EPERM;
> > +		}
> 
> I'm wondering if we can move this check to (1) above.
> Because currently it's a good question if we are able to stop PPS which was
> run by somebody else without this check done.

Do you mean can someone stop the signal without this check? 
Yes, this check is not required to stop.  So, I feel it need not be moved to (1).

Please, correct me if my understanding is wrong.

> 
> I.o.w. this sounds too weird to me and reading the code doesn't give any hint
> if it's even possible. And if it is, are we supposed to touch that since it was
> definitely *not* us who ran it.

Yes, we are not restricting on who can stop/start the signal. 

> 
> > +		pps_tio_direction_output(tio);
> > +		hrtimer_start(&tio->timer, first_event(tio),
> HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
> > +		tio->enabled = true;
> > +	} else if (!enable && tio->enabled) {
> > +		hrtimer_cancel(&tio->timer);
> > +		pps_tio_disable(tio);
> > +		tio->enabled = false;
> > +	}
> > +	return count;
> > +}
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static int pps_tio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) {
> 
> 	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> 
> > +	struct pps_tio *tio;
> > +
> > +	if (!(cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_TSC_KNOWN_FREQ) &&
> > +	      cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_ART))) {
> > +		dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "TSC/ART is not enabled");
> 
> 		dev_warn(dev, "TSC/ART is not enabled");
> 
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	tio = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*tio), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> 	tio = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*tio), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> 
> > +	if (!tio)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	tio->dev = &pdev->dev;
> 
> 	tio->dev = dev;
> 
> > +	tio->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(tio->base))
> > +		return PTR_ERR(tio->base);
> 
> > +	pps_tio_disable(tio);
> 
> This...
> 
> > +	hrtimer_init(&tio->timer, CLOCK_REALTIME, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
> > +	tio->timer.function = hrtimer_callback;
> > +	spin_lock_init(&tio->lock);
> 
> > +	tio->enabled = false;
> 
> ...and this should go together, which makes me look at the enabled flag over
> the code and it seems there are a few places where you missed to sync it
> with the reality.
> 
> I would think of something like this:
> 
> 	pps_tio_direction_output() ==> true
> 	pps_tio_disable(tio) ==> false
> 
> where "==> X" means assignment of enabled flag.
> 
> And perhaps this:
> 
> 	tio->enabled = pps_generate_next_pulse(tio, expires +
> SAFE_TIME_NS);
> 	if (!tio->enabled)
> 		...
> 
> But the above is just thinking out loudly, you may find the better
> approach(es).

Yeah, makes sense.

Will add enable counterpart.
Will update tio->enabled in disable and enable functions.

> 
> > +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, tio);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 

Regards,
Lakshmi Sowjanya
Andy Shevchenko May 27, 2024, 2:34 p.m. UTC | #4
Mon, May 27, 2024 at 11:48:54AM +0000, D, Lakshmi Sowjanya kirjoitti:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:49 PM
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 04:08:11PM +0530, lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com
> > wrote:

...

> > > +static ssize_t enable_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute
> > *attr, const char *buf,
> > > +			    size_t count)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct pps_tio *tio = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > +	bool enable;
> > > +	int err;
> > 
> > (1)
> > 
> > > +	err = kstrtobool(buf, &enable);
> > > +	if (err)
> > > +		return err;
> > > +
> > > +	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&tio->lock);
> > > +	if (enable && !tio->enabled) {
> > 
> > > +		if (!timekeeping_clocksource_has_base(CSID_X86_ART)) {
> > > +			dev_err(tio->dev, "PPS cannot be started as clock is
> > not related
> > > +to ART");
> > 
> > Why not simply dev_err(dev, ...)?
> > 
> > > +			return -EPERM;
> > > +		}
> > 
> > I'm wondering if we can move this check to (1) above.
> > Because currently it's a good question if we are able to stop PPS which was
> > run by somebody else without this check done.
> 
> Do you mean can someone stop the signal without this check? 
> Yes, this check is not required to stop.  So, I feel it need not be moved to (1).
> 
> Please, correct me if my understanding is wrong.

So, there is a possibility to have a PPS being run (by somebody else) even if
there is no ART provided?

If "yes", your check is wrong to begin with. If "no", my suggestion is correct,
i.e. there is no need to stop something that can't be started at all.

> > I.o.w. this sounds too weird to me and reading the code doesn't give any hint
> > if it's even possible. And if it is, are we supposed to touch that since it was
> > definitely *not* us who ran it.
> 
> Yes, we are not restricting on who can stop/start the signal. 

See above. It's not about this kind of restriction.

> > > +		pps_tio_direction_output(tio);
> > > +		hrtimer_start(&tio->timer, first_event(tio),
> > HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
> > > +		tio->enabled = true;
> > > +	} else if (!enable && tio->enabled) {
> > > +		hrtimer_cancel(&tio->timer);
> > > +		pps_tio_disable(tio);
> > > +		tio->enabled = false;
> > > +	}
> > > +	return count;
> > > +}
D, Lakshmi Sowjanya May 30, 2024, 5:52 a.m. UTC | #5
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 8:04 PM
> To: D, Lakshmi Sowjanya <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com>
> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>; tglx@linutronix.de;
> jstultz@google.com; giometti@enneenne.com; corbet@lwn.net; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; x86@kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> doc@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; Dong, Eddie
> <eddie.dong@intel.com>; Hall, Christopher S <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>;
> Brandeburg, Jesse <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>; davem@davemloft.net;
> alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com; joabreu@synopsys.com;
> mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com; perex@perex.cz; linux-sound@vger.kernel.org;
> Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>;
> peter.hilber@opensynergy.com; N, Pandith <pandith.n@intel.com>; Mohan,
> Subramanian <subramanian.mohan@intel.com>; T R, Thejesh Reddy
> <thejesh.reddy.t.r@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 10/12] pps: generators: Add PPS Generator TIO Driver
> 
> Mon, May 27, 2024 at 11:48:54AM +0000, D, Lakshmi Sowjanya kirjoitti:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:49 PM
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 04:08:11PM +0530,
> > > lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com
> > > wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +static ssize_t enable_store(struct device *dev, struct
> > > > +device_attribute
> > > *attr, const char *buf,
> > > > +			    size_t count)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct pps_tio *tio = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > +	bool enable;
> > > > +	int err;
> > >
> > > (1)
> > >
> > > > +	err = kstrtobool(buf, &enable);
> > > > +	if (err)
> > > > +		return err;
> > > > +
> > > > +	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&tio->lock);
> > > > +	if (enable && !tio->enabled) {
> > >
> > > > +		if (!timekeeping_clocksource_has_base(CSID_X86_ART)) {
> > > > +			dev_err(tio->dev, "PPS cannot be started as clock is
> > > not related
> > > > +to ART");
> > >
> > > Why not simply dev_err(dev, ...)?
> > >
> > > > +			return -EPERM;
> > > > +		}
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if we can move this check to (1) above.
> > > Because currently it's a good question if we are able to stop PPS
> > > which was run by somebody else without this check done.
> >
> > Do you mean can someone stop the signal without this check?
> > Yes, this check is not required to stop.  So, I feel it need not be moved to (1).
> >
> > Please, correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> 
> So, there is a possibility to have a PPS being run (by somebody else) even if there
> is no ART provided?
> 
> If "yes", your check is wrong to begin with. If "no", my suggestion is correct, i.e.
> there is no need to stop something that can't be started at all.

It is a "no", PPS doesn't start without ART.

We can move the check to (1), but it would always be checking for ART even in case of disable. 
Code readability is better with this approach.

        struct pps_tio *tio = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
        bool enable;
        int err;

        if (!timekeeping_clocksource_has_base(CSID_X86_ART)) {
                dev_err(dev, "PPS cannot be started as clock is not related to ART");
                return -EPERM; 
        }

        err = kstrtobool(buf, &enable);
        if (err)
                return err;

> 
> > > I.o.w. this sounds too weird to me and reading the code doesn't give
> > > any hint if it's even possible. And if it is, are we supposed to
> > > touch that since it was definitely *not* us who ran it.
> >
> > Yes, we are not restricting on who can stop/start the signal.
> 
> See above. It's not about this kind of restriction.
> 
> > > > +		pps_tio_direction_output(tio);
> > > > +		hrtimer_start(&tio->timer, first_event(tio),
> > > HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
> > > > +		tio->enabled = true;
> > > > +	} else if (!enable && tio->enabled) {
> > > > +		hrtimer_cancel(&tio->timer);
> > > > +		pps_tio_disable(tio);
> > > > +		tio->enabled = false;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	return count;
> > > > +}
> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 

Regards
Sowjanya
Andy Shevchenko May 30, 2024, 8:38 a.m. UTC | #6
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 8:52 AM D, Lakshmi Sowjanya
<lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 8:04 PM
> > Mon, May 27, 2024 at 11:48:54AM +0000, D, Lakshmi Sowjanya kirjoitti:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:49 PM
> > > > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 04:08:11PM +0530,
> > > > lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com
> > > > wrote:

...

> > > > > +static ssize_t enable_store(struct device *dev, struct
> > > > > +device_attribute
> > > > *attr, const char *buf,
> > > > > +                           size_t count)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       struct pps_tio *tio = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > > +       bool enable;
> > > > > +       int err;
> > > >
> > > > (1)
> > > >
> > > > > +       err = kstrtobool(buf, &enable);
> > > > > +       if (err)
> > > > > +               return err;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&tio->lock);
> > > > > +       if (enable && !tio->enabled) {
> > > >
> > > > > +               if (!timekeeping_clocksource_has_base(CSID_X86_ART)) {
> > > > > +                       dev_err(tio->dev, "PPS cannot be started as clock is
> > > > not related
> > > > > +to ART");
> > > >
> > > > Why not simply dev_err(dev, ...)?
> > > >
> > > > > +                       return -EPERM;
> > > > > +               }
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if we can move this check to (1) above.
> > > > Because currently it's a good question if we are able to stop PPS
> > > > which was run by somebody else without this check done.
> > >
> > > Do you mean can someone stop the signal without this check?
> > > Yes, this check is not required to stop.  So, I feel it need not be moved to (1).
> > >
> > > Please, correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> >
> > So, there is a possibility to have a PPS being run (by somebody else) even if there
> > is no ART provided?
> >
> > If "yes", your check is wrong to begin with. If "no", my suggestion is correct, i.e.
> > there is no need to stop something that can't be started at all.
>
> It is a "no", PPS doesn't start without ART.
>
> We can move the check to (1), but it would always be checking for ART even in case of disable.

Please do,

> Code readability is better with this approach.
>
>         struct pps_tio *tio = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>         bool enable;
>         int err;
>
>         if (!timekeeping_clocksource_has_base(CSID_X86_ART)) {
>                 dev_err(dev, "PPS cannot be started as clock is not related to ART");

started --> used

>                 return -EPERM;
>         }
>
>         err = kstrtobool(buf, &enable);
>         if (err)
>                 return err;
>
> > > > I.o.w. this sounds too weird to me and reading the code doesn't give
> > > > any hint if it's even possible. And if it is, are we supposed to
> > > > touch that since it was definitely *not* us who ran it.
> > >
> > > Yes, we are not restricting on who can stop/start the signal.
> >
> > See above. It's not about this kind of restriction.
> >
> > > > > +               pps_tio_direction_output(tio);
> > > > > +               hrtimer_start(&tio->timer, first_event(tio),
> > > > HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
> > > > > +               tio->enabled = true;
> > > > > +       } else if (!enable && tio->enabled) {
> > > > > +               hrtimer_cancel(&tio->timer);
> > > > > +               pps_tio_disable(tio);
> > > > > +               tio->enabled = false;
> > > > > +       }
> > > > > +       return count;
> > > > > +}
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/pps/generators/Kconfig b/drivers/pps/generators/Kconfig
index d615e640fcad..0f090932336f 100644
--- a/drivers/pps/generators/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/pps/generators/Kconfig
@@ -12,3 +12,19 @@  config PPS_GENERATOR_PARPORT
 	  If you say yes here you get support for a PPS signal generator which
 	  utilizes STROBE pin of a parallel port to send PPS signals. It uses
 	  parport abstraction layer and hrtimers to precisely control the signal.
+
+config PPS_GENERATOR_TIO
+	tristate "TIO PPS signal generator"
+	depends on X86 && CPU_SUP_INTEL
+	help
+	  If you say yes here you get support for a PPS TIO signal generator
+	  which generates a pulse at a prescribed time based on the system clock.
+	  It uses time translation and hrtimers to precisely generate a pulse.
+	  This hardware is present on 2019 and newer Intel CPUs. However, this
+	  driver is not useful without adding highly specialized hardware outside
+	  the Linux system to observe these pulses.
+
+	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
+	  will be called pps_gen_tio.
+
+	  If unsure, say N.
diff --git a/drivers/pps/generators/Makefile b/drivers/pps/generators/Makefile
index 2589fd0f2481..714e847ae193 100644
--- a/drivers/pps/generators/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/pps/generators/Makefile
@@ -4,5 +4,6 @@ 
 #
 
 obj-$(CONFIG_PPS_GENERATOR_PARPORT) += pps_gen_parport.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_PPS_GENERATOR_TIO) += pps_gen_tio.o
 
 ccflags-$(CONFIG_PPS_DEBUG) := -DDEBUG
diff --git a/drivers/pps/generators/pps_gen_tio.c b/drivers/pps/generators/pps_gen_tio.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..c6b7f13ffeca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/pps/generators/pps_gen_tio.c
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/*
+ * Intel PPS signal Generator Driver
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2024 Intel Corporation
+ */
+
+#include <linux/bits.h>
+#include <linux/bitfield.h>
+#include <linux/cleanup.h>
+#include <linux/container_of.h>
+#include <linux/cpu.h>
+#include <linux/device.h>
+#include <linux/err.h>
+#include <linux/hrtimer.h>
+#include <linux/io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h>
+#include <linux/kstrtox.h>
+#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/spinlock.h>
+#include <linux/sysfs.h>
+#include <linux/timekeeping.h>
+#include <linux/types.h>
+
+#include <asm/cpu_device_id.h>
+
+#define TIOCTL			0x00
+#define TIOCOMPV		0x10
+#define TIOEC			0x30
+
+/* Control Register */
+#define TIOCTL_EN			BIT(0)
+#define TIOCTL_DIR			BIT(1)
+#define TIOCTL_EP			GENMASK(3, 2)
+#define TIOCTL_EP_RISING_EDGE		FIELD_PREP(TIOCTL_EP, 0)
+#define TIOCTL_EP_FALLING_EDGE		FIELD_PREP(TIOCTL_EP, 1)
+#define TIOCTL_EP_TOGGLE_EDGE		FIELD_PREP(TIOCTL_EP, 2)
+
+#define SAFE_TIME_NS			(10 * NSEC_PER_MSEC) /* Safety time to set hrtimer early */
+#define MAGIC_CONST			(NSEC_PER_SEC - SAFE_TIME_NS)
+#define ART_HW_DELAY_CYCLES		2
+
+struct pps_tio {
+	struct hrtimer timer;
+	struct device *dev;
+	spinlock_t lock;
+	struct attribute_group attrs;
+	void __iomem *base;
+	bool enabled;
+	u32 prev_count;
+};
+
+static inline u32 pps_tio_read(struct pps_tio *tio, u32 offset)
+{
+	return readl(tio->base + offset);
+}
+
+static inline void pps_ctl_write(struct pps_tio *tio, u32 value)
+{
+	writel(value, tio->base + TIOCTL);
+}
+
+/* For COMPV register, It's safer to write higher 32-bit followed by lower 32-bit */
+static inline void pps_compv_write(struct pps_tio *tio, u64 value)
+{
+	hi_lo_writeq(value, tio->base + TIOCOMPV);
+}
+
+static inline ktime_t first_event(struct pps_tio *tio)
+{
+	return ktime_set(ktime_get_real_seconds() + 1, MAGIC_CONST);
+}
+
+static u32 pps_tio_disable(struct pps_tio *tio)
+{
+	u32 ctrl;
+
+	ctrl = pps_tio_read(tio, TIOCTL);
+	pps_compv_write(tio, 0);
+
+	ctrl &= ~TIOCTL_EN;
+	pps_ctl_write(tio, ctrl);
+	tio->prev_count = 0;
+
+	return ctrl;
+}
+
+static void pps_tio_direction_output(struct pps_tio *tio)
+{
+	u32 ctrl;
+
+	ctrl = pps_tio_disable(tio);
+
+	/* We enable the device, be sure that the 'compare' value is invalid */
+	pps_compv_write(tio, 0);
+
+	ctrl &= ~(TIOCTL_DIR | TIOCTL_EP);
+	ctrl |= TIOCTL_EP_TOGGLE_EDGE;
+	pps_ctl_write(tio, ctrl);
+
+	ctrl |= TIOCTL_EN;
+	pps_ctl_write(tio, ctrl);
+}
+
+static bool pps_generate_next_pulse(struct pps_tio *tio, ktime_t expires)
+{
+	u64 art;
+
+	if (!ktime_real_to_base_clock(expires, CSID_X86_ART, &art)) {
+		pps_tio_disable(tio);
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	pps_compv_write(tio, art - ART_HW_DELAY_CYCLES);
+	return true;
+}
+
+static enum hrtimer_restart hrtimer_callback(struct hrtimer *timer)
+{
+	struct pps_tio *tio = container_of(timer, struct pps_tio, timer);
+	ktime_t expires, now;
+	u32 event_count;
+
+	guard(spinlock)(&tio->lock);
+
+	/* Check if any event is missed. If an event is missed, TIO will be disabled*/
+	event_count = pps_tio_read(tio, TIOEC);
+	if (tio->prev_count && tio->prev_count == event_count)
+		goto err;
+	tio->prev_count = event_count;
+	expires = hrtimer_get_expires(timer);
+	now = ktime_get_real();
+
+	if (now - expires >= SAFE_TIME_NS)
+		goto err;
+
+	if (!pps_generate_next_pulse(tio, expires + SAFE_TIME_NS))
+		return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
+
+	hrtimer_forward(timer, now, NSEC_PER_SEC / 2);
+	return HRTIMER_RESTART;
+err:
+	dev_err(tio->dev, "Event missed, Disabling Timed I/O");
+	pps_tio_disable(tio);
+	return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
+}
+
+static ssize_t enable_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf,
+			    size_t count)
+{
+	struct pps_tio *tio = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+	bool enable;
+	int err;
+
+	err = kstrtobool(buf, &enable);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
+	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&tio->lock);
+	if (enable && !tio->enabled) {
+		if (!timekeeping_clocksource_has_base(CSID_X86_ART)) {
+			dev_err(tio->dev, "PPS cannot be started as clock is not related to ART");
+			return -EPERM;
+		}
+		pps_tio_direction_output(tio);
+		hrtimer_start(&tio->timer, first_event(tio), HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
+		tio->enabled = true;
+	} else if (!enable && tio->enabled) {
+		hrtimer_cancel(&tio->timer);
+		pps_tio_disable(tio);
+		tio->enabled = false;
+	}
+	return count;
+}
+
+static ssize_t enable_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr, char *buf)
+{
+	struct pps_tio *tio = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+	u32 ctrl;
+
+	ctrl = pps_tio_read(tio, TIOCTL);
+	ctrl &= TIOCTL_EN;
+
+	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%u\n", ctrl);
+}
+static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(enable);
+
+static struct attribute *pps_tio_attrs[] = {
+	&dev_attr_enable.attr,
+	NULL
+};
+ATTRIBUTE_GROUPS(pps_tio);
+
+static int pps_tio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+	struct pps_tio *tio;
+
+	if (!(cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_TSC_KNOWN_FREQ) &&
+	      cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_ART))) {
+		dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "TSC/ART is not enabled");
+		return -ENODEV;
+	}
+
+	tio = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*tio), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!tio)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	tio->dev = &pdev->dev;
+	tio->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
+	if (IS_ERR(tio->base))
+		return PTR_ERR(tio->base);
+
+	pps_tio_disable(tio);
+	hrtimer_init(&tio->timer, CLOCK_REALTIME, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
+	tio->timer.function = hrtimer_callback;
+	spin_lock_init(&tio->lock);
+	tio->enabled = false;
+	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, tio);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int pps_tio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+	struct pps_tio *tio = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+
+	hrtimer_cancel(&tio->timer);
+	pps_tio_disable(tio);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct acpi_device_id intel_pmc_tio_acpi_match[] = {
+	{ "INTC1021" },
+	{ "INTC1022" },
+	{ "INTC1023" },
+	{ "INTC1024" },
+	{}
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, intel_pmc_tio_acpi_match);
+
+static struct platform_driver pps_tio_driver = {
+	.probe          = pps_tio_probe,
+	.remove         = pps_tio_remove,
+	.driver         = {
+		.name                   = "intel-pps-generator",
+		.acpi_match_table       = intel_pmc_tio_acpi_match,
+		.dev_groups             = pps_tio_groups,
+	},
+};
+module_platform_driver(pps_tio_driver);
+
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Lakshmi Sowjanya D <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com>");
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>");
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Pandith N <pandith.n@intel.com>");
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Thejesh Reddy T R <thejesh.reddy.t.r@intel.com>");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Intel PMC Time-Aware IO Generator Driver");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");