[PATCH] IIO: Add basic MXS LRADC driver

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Lars-Peter Clausen,

Sorry for my late reply, got busy with other crazy stuff.

[...]

> >> Is there any reason not to use the mxs_lradc struct directly has the iio
> >> data?
> > 
> > I explained it below in the patch. I hope we'll eventually support the
> > delay triggers, which will need 4 separate IIO devices. And this is
> > where this structure will be augmented by other components.
> 
> Ok I saw the comment, but it wasn't obvious to me that delay channels will
> require multiple IIO devices. Might make sense to state this explicitly.

Fixed.

> >>> [...]
> >>> 
> >>> +
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Channel management
> >>> + *
> >>> + * This involves crazy mapping between 8 virtual channels the CTRL4
> >>> register + * can harbor and 16 channels total this hardware supports.
> >>> + */
> >> 
> >> I suppose this means only a maximum 8 channels can be active at a time.
> >> I've recently posted a patch which makes it easy to implement such a
> >> restriction. http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-iio/msg05936.html and
> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-iio/msg05935.html for an example
> >> validate callback implementation. In your case you'd check for
> >> bitmap_weight(...) <= 8. Those patches are not yet in IIO though.
> > 
> > This is good. When do you expect this to hit linux-next possibly? Or at
> > least linux-iio?
> 
> soon, hopefully.

So I checked this, not sure how it'll help me though.

> > [..]
> > 
> >>> +static int mxs_lradc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *iio_dev,
> >>> +			const struct iio_chan_spec *chan,
> >>> +			int *val, int *val2, long m)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct mxs_lradc_data *data = iio_priv(iio_dev);
> >>> +	struct mxs_lradc *lradc = data->lradc;
> >>> +	int ret, slot;
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (m != 0)
> >> 
> >> I'd use the symbolic constant here IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW
> >> 
> >>> +		return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* Map channel. */
> >>> +	slot = mxs_lradc_map_channel(lradc, chan->channel,
> >>> LRADC_CHAN_FLAG_RAW); +	if (slot < 0)
> >>> +		return slot;
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* Start sampling. */
> >>> +	mxs_lradc_run_slots(lradc, 1 << slot);
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* Wait for completion on the channel, 1 second max. */
> >>> +	lradc->wq_done[slot] = false;
> >>> +	ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(lradc->wq_data_avail[slot],
> >>> +					       lradc->wq_done[slot],
> >>> +					       msecs_to_jiffies(1000));
> >>> +	if (!ret) {
> 
> Just noticed this, wait_event_interruptible_timeout can return an error
> value, e.g. if it has been interrupted.

Fixed

> >>> +		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> >>> +		goto err;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >> 
> >> How well will this work if the device is currrently in buffered mode?
> >> Maybe it's better do disablow it by checking iio_buffer_enabled and
> >> return -EBUSY if it returns true;
> > 
> > I believe this should work perfectly OK, why won't it ? I tried to avoid
> > such artificial limitation.
> 
> I suppose it is fine, but not knowing the hardware, what does
> mxs_lradc_run_slots do exactly?

Execute the sampling on the mapped slots.

> > [...]
> > 
> >>> +static int mxs_lradc_configure_trigger(struct iio_trigger *trig, bool
> >>> state) +{
> >>> +	struct iio_dev *iio = trig->private_data;
> >>> +	struct mxs_lradc_data *data = iio_priv(iio);
> >>> +	struct mxs_lradc *lradc = data->lradc;
> >>> +	struct iio_buffer *buffer = iio->buffer;
> >>> +	int slot, bit, ret = 0;
> >>> +	uint8_t map = 0;
> >>> +	unsigned long chans = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (!state)
> >>> +		goto exit;
> >>> +
> >>> +	lradc->buffer = kmalloc(iio->scan_bytes, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> +	if (!lradc->buffer)
> >>> +		return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> +	for_each_set_bit(bit, buffer->scan_mask, LRADC_MAX_TOTAL_CHANS) {
> >>> +		slot = mxs_lradc_map_channel(lradc, bit, LRADC_CHAN_FLAG_BUF);
> >>> +
> >>> +		if (slot < 0) {
> >>> +			ret = -EINVAL;
> >>> +			goto exit;
> >>> +		}
> >>> +		map |= 1 << slot;
> >>> +		chans |= 1 << bit;
> >>> +	}
> >> 
> >> I think this should go into the buffer preenable and postdisable
> >> callbacks.
> > 
> > How much of it, only the slot mapping or the allocation too ?
> 
> Yeah I guess it is a bit tricky in this case. A good rule of thumb is to
> ask yourself whether the driver will (hypothetically) still work if
> another trigger is used. So the buffer allocation should certainly be
> handled by the buffer code, either the prenable or the update_scan_mode
> callback. The channel mapping part is not so obvious, but I'd put it in
> the
> preenable/postdisable callbacks as well.

Lemme try.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut