On 10/19/2017 03:54 PM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:

On 10/19/2017 06:32 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

quoted

On 10/19/2017 01:09 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 19 October 2017 02:43 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

quoted

On 10/19/2017 07:07 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Sounds reasonable. What's the status of this series?

I have had some offline discussions with Franklin on this, and I am not
fully convinced that DT is the way to go here (although I don't have the
agreement with Franklin there).

Probably the fundamental area where we disagree is what "default" SSP
value should be used. Based on a short (< 1 ft) point to point test
using a SSP of 50% worked fine. However, I'm not convinced that this
default value of 50% will work in a more "traditional" CAN bus at higher
speeds. Nor am I convinced that a SSP of 50% will work on every MCAN
board in even the simplest test cases.

I believe that this default SSP should be a DT property that allows any
board to determine what default value works best in general.

With that, I think, we are taking DT from describing board/hardware
characteristics to providing default values that software should use.

If the default value is board specific and cannot be calculated in
general or from other values present in the DT, then it's from my point
of view describing the hardware.

quoted

In any case, if Marc and/or Wolfgang are okay with it, binding
documentation for such a property should be sent to DT maintainers for
review.

quoted

quoted

There are two components in configuring the secondary sample point. It
is the transceiver loopback delay and an offset (example half of the bit
time in data phase).

While the transceiver loopback delay is pretty board dependent (and thus
amenable to DT encoding), I am not quite sure the offset can be
configured in DT because its not really board dependent.

Unfortunately, offset calculation does not seem to be an exact science.
There are recommendations ranging from using 50% of bit time to making
it same as the sample point configured. This means users who need to
change the SSP due to offset variations need to change  their DT even
without anything changing on their board.

Since we have a netlink socket interface to configure sample point, I
wonder if that should be extended to configure SSP too (or at least the
offset part of SSP)?

Sekhar is right that ideally the user should be able to set the SSP at
runtime. However, my issue is that based on my experience CAN users
expect the driver to just work the majority of times. For unique use
cases where the driver calculated values don't work then the user should
be able to override it. This should only be done for a very small
percentage of CAN users. Unless you allow DT to provide a default SSP
many users of MCAN may find that the default SSP doesn't work and must
always use runtime overrides to get anything to work. I don't think that
is a good user experience which is why I don't like the idea.

Fair enough. But not quite sure if CAN users expect CAN-FD to "just
work" without doing any bittiming related setup.

From my point of view I'd rather buy a board from a HW vendor where
CAN-FD works, rather than a board where I have to tweak the bit-timing
for a simple CAN-FD test setup.

As far as I see for the m_can driver it's a single tuple: "bitrate > 2.5
MBit/s -> 50%". Do we need an array of tuples in general?

Internally what I proposed was a binding that allowed you to pass in an
array of a range of baud rates and then a SSP for that baud rate range.
Therefore, if the baud rate being used impacted what SSP worked then it
allows someone to provide a range of defaults. Of course a person also
has the ability to use a single large range thus implementing a single
default SSP value.

A single tuple is just a special case of a list of tuples :)

I was thinking of something like this:

First we need a struct defining the bitrate spp relationship.

The driver provides default values by a sorted array of these structs
together with array length.

During device registration we assign these default values to the actual
driver instance.

The netlink code can read and overwrite the current values. Maybe it can
read the default values.

The bitrate calculation code calculates the to be used spp value.

The driver sets the value during the open callback.

quoted

Do we need more than one tuple here?

quoted

quoted

If good default values are transceiver and board specific, they can go
into the DT. We need a generic (this means driver agnostic) binding for
this. If this table needs to be tweaked for special purpose, then we can
add a netlink interface for this as well.

Comments?

I dont know how a good default (other than 50% as the starting point)
can be arrived at without doing any actual measurements on the actual
network. Since we do know that the value has to be tweaked, agree that
netlink interface has to be provided.

Now I have seen in non public documentations that setting SP to SSP also
works.

This can already by done now, without the need for new interfaces.

This makes a bit more sense to me and I'm alot more comfortable going
with this. However, since its based on non public information I can't
justify it beyond that "it works for me". But I'm alot more 
comfortable going with then saying "hey this default value works for 
TI's dra76 evm. Therefore, every MCAN board will be stuck by default
for a value that works for us". So if there is no push back with
going with SSP = db SP with no documentation to back up why that is
being used then I will try that out and send patches.

This means we postpone the whole add-new-interface-dance until the
SPP=SP approach doesn't work for some usecase?

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |