lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/2] iio: vadc: Qualcomm SPMI PMIC voltage ADC driver
From
Date

On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 23:39 +0100, Hartmut Knaack wrote:
> Ivan T. Ivanov schrieb am 11.11.2014 09:21:
> > Hi Hartmut,
> >
> > On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 22:11 +0100, Hartmut Knaack wrote:
> > > Ivan T. Ivanov schrieb am 03.11.2014 16:24:
> > > > From: Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@mm-sol.com>
> > > >
> > > > The voltage ADC is peripheral of Qualcomm SPMI PMIC chips. It has
> > > > 15 bits resolution and register space inside PMIC accessible across
> > > > SPMI bus.
> > > >
> > > > The vadc driver registers itself through IIO interface.
> > > Reviewing again, I got the feeling that due to the complexity of adc reads (writing to
> > > register
> > > to start conversion, waiting a decent time for the conversion to complete, reading the
> > > result),
> > > it would be beneficial to use a mutex in vadc_read_raw or its depending functions.
> >
> > Hm, yes, but there is such a nice info_exist_lock :-) in core functions,
> > which in practice serve the same purpose.
> I seem to miss that. Please point me in the right direction.

I am referring to info_exist_lock mutex part of struct iio_dev.
It protects all operations inkern.c, no?

> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = of_property_read_u32(node, "reg", &res);
> > > For u16, there would be of_property_read_u16().
> > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > Just return ret here?
> >
> > I am usually trying to follow these recommendations[1]. In practice driver
> > core cares only for EPROBE_DEFER, ENODEV and ENXIO, while of_property_read_u32()
> > can return ENODATA and EOVERFLOW, which did't not make sense for the core.
> Please point me in the right direction on this one, too. It is pretty common to pass error codes
> up, as it is also mentioned in [1].

Yes, I know that is common to just pass error codes up, but in this case it did't
make too much sense, I think. Also take a look at realy_probe() and line 343.

> Yet, this thread in [1] seems more like a draft to me, as Greg K-H wrote in the end: "Fair
> enough, care to respin this and send it out to me for review?"



Yes, but it make sense to me.

Regards,
Ivan


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-12 10:21    [W:0.072 / U:6.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site