Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Tue, 2 May 2017 23:53:39 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] iio: adc: Add support for TI ADC1x8s102 |
| |
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote: > This is an upstream port of an IIO driver for the TI ADC108S102 and > ADC128S102. The former can be found on the Intel Galileo Gen2 and the > Siemens SIMATIC IOT2000. For those boards, ACPI-based enumeration is > included. > > Original author: Bogdan Pricop <bogdan.pricop@emutex.com> > Ported from Intel Galileo Gen2 BSP to Intel Yocto kernel: > Todor Minchev <todor@minchev.co.uk>.
There are several nitpicks, and one concern about regulator. After addressing at least the latter
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio.h>
Redundant I beleive.
> +static int adc108s102_update_scan_mode(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > + unsigned long const *active_scan_mask) > +{ > + struct adc108s102_state *st; > + unsigned int bit, cmds;
> + > + st = iio_priv(indio_dev); > +
I think it's a quite good pattern to assign such variables above at definition block. This also would be done in several functions below (except ->probe() call)
> + /* > + * Fill in the first x shorts of tx_buf with the number of channels > + * enabled for sampling by the triggered buffer > + */
Usually in multiline comments even for one sentence we use period at the end.
> + cmds = 0; > + for_each_set_bit(bit, active_scan_mask, ADC108S102_MAX_CHANNELS) > + st->tx_buf[cmds++] = cpu_to_be16(ADC108S102_CMD(bit)); > + > + /* One dummy command added, to clock in the last response */ > + st->tx_buf[cmds++] = 0x00; > + > + /* build SPI ring message */
> + st->ring_xfer.tx_buf = &st->tx_buf[0]; > + st->ring_xfer.rx_buf = &st->rx_buf[0];
&pointer[0] -> pointer
> + st->ring_xfer.len = cmds * sizeof(st->tx_buf[0]); > + > + spi_message_init_with_transfers(&st->ring_msg, &st->ring_xfer, 1); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static irqreturn_t adc108s102_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p) > +{ > + struct iio_poll_func *pf = p; > + struct iio_dev *indio_dev; > + struct adc108s102_state *st; > + int ret; > +
> + indio_dev = pf->indio_dev; > + st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
Assign them above.
> +out:
I would name it out_notify.
> + iio_trigger_notify_done(indio_dev->trig); > + > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > +}
> +static int adc108s102_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > + struct iio_chan_spec const *chan, > + int *val, int *val2, long m) > +{
> + int ret; > + struct adc108s102_state *st;
Reversed tree order.
> + > + st = iio_priv(indio_dev); > +
Assign it above.
> + switch (m) { > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW: > + ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + ret = adc108s102_scan_direct(st, chan->address); > + > + iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev); > + > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; > + > + *val = ADC108S102_RES_DATA(ret); > + > + return IIO_VAL_INT; > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE: > + switch (chan->type) { > + case IIO_VOLTAGE: > + if (st->reg) > + *val = regulator_get_voltage(st->reg) / 1000; > + else > + *val = st->ext_vin_mv; > + > + *val2 = chan->scan_type.realbits; > + return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2;
> + default: > + return -EINVAL;
Switch-case for one case? Are you expecting more in the future? Here I have no strong opinion, so, leave what you / maintainers prefer.
> + } > + default: > + return -EINVAL; > + } > +}
> +static int adc108s102_probe(struct spi_device *spi) > +{ > + struct adc108s102_state *st; > + struct iio_dev *indio_dev; > + u32 val; > + int ret; > + > + indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(&spi->dev, sizeof(*st)); > + if (!indio_dev) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + st = iio_priv(indio_dev); > +
> + ret = device_property_read_u32(&spi->dev, "ext-vin-microvolt", &val);
Why not to read u16 here?
> + if (ret < 0) { > + dev_err(&spi->dev, > + "Missing ext-vin-microvolt device property\n"); > + return -ENODEV; > + }
> + st->ext_vin_mv = (u16)val;
Casting is not needed.
> + > + /* Use regulator, if available. */ > + st->reg = devm_regulator_get(&spi->dev, "vref");
Here is most important concern, how you get this regulator in ACPI case in the future? To me it sounds more like devm_regulator_get_optional();
> + if (IS_ERR(st->reg)) { > + dev_err(&spi->dev, "Cannot get 'vref' regulator\n"); > + return PTR_ERR(st->reg); > + } > + ret = regulator_enable(st->reg); > + if (ret < 0) { > + dev_err(&spi->dev, "Cannot enable vref regulator\n"); > + return ret; > + } > + > + spi_set_drvdata(spi, indio_dev); > + st->spi = spi; > + > + indio_dev->name = spi->modalias; > + indio_dev->dev.parent = &spi->dev; > + indio_dev->modes = INDIO_DIRECT_MODE; > + indio_dev->channels = adc108s102_channels; > + indio_dev->num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(adc108s102_channels); > + indio_dev->info = &adc108s102_info; > + > + /* Setup default message */ > + st->scan_single_xfer.tx_buf = st->tx_buf; > + st->scan_single_xfer.rx_buf = st->rx_buf; > + st->scan_single_xfer.len = 2 * sizeof(st->tx_buf[0]); > + > + spi_message_init_with_transfers(&st->scan_single_msg, > + &st->scan_single_xfer, 1); > +
> + ret = iio_triggered_buffer_setup(indio_dev, NULL, > + &adc108s102_trigger_handler, NULL); > + if (ret) > + goto error_disable_reg; > + > + ret = iio_device_register(indio_dev);
I suppose some of above is already under devres API (implicitly when devm_iio_..._alloc() is in use)
> + if (ret) { > + dev_err(&spi->dev, "Failed to register IIO device\n"); > + goto error_cleanup_ring; > + } > + return 0;
> + > +error_cleanup_ring: > + iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(indio_dev);
Do you need it when devm_ used?
> +error_disable_reg: > + regulator_disable(st->reg);
Ditto.
> + > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int adc108s102_remove(struct spi_device *spi) > +{ > + struct iio_dev *indio_dev = spi_get_drvdata(spi); > + struct adc108s102_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev); > +
> + iio_device_unregister(indio_dev); > + iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(indio_dev); > + > + regulator_disable(st->reg);
Ditto.
> + > + return 0; > +} > +
> +static struct spi_driver adc108s102_driver = { > + .driver = { > + .name = "adc108s102",
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
This is redundant I'm pretty sure.
> + .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(adc108s102_acpi_ids), > + }, > + .probe = adc108s102_probe, > + .remove = adc108s102_remove, > + .id_table = adc108s102_id, > +};
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |