[PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: dts: vfxxx: Add property for minimum sample time

[maitysanchayan at gmail.com]

Hello Jonathan,

On 15-07-11 18:39:10, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 10/07/15 19:06, maitysanchayan at gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello Shawn,
> > 
> > On 15-07-10 16:53:24, Shawn Guo wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:03:41PM +0530, Sanchayan Maity wrote:
> >>> Add a device tree property which allows to specify the minimum sample
> >>> time which can be used to calculate the actual ADC cycles required
> >>> depending on the hardware.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Sanchayan Maity <maitysanchayan at gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/vfxxx.dtsi | 2 ++
> >>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/vfxxx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/vfxxx.dtsi
> >>> index 90a03d5..71d9c08 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/vfxxx.dtsi
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/vfxxx.dtsi
> >>> @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@
> >>>  				status = "disabled";
> >>>  				fsl,adck-max-frequency = <30000000>, <40000000>,
> >>>  							<20000000>;
> >>> +				min-sample-time = <1000>;
> >>>  			};
> >>>  
> >>>  			wdoga5: wdog at 4003e000 {
> >>> @@ -447,6 +448,7 @@
> >>>  				status = "disabled";
> >>>  				fsl,adck-max-frequency = <30000000>, <40000000>,
> >>>  							<20000000>;
> >>> +				min-sample-time = <1000>;
> >>
> >> Can we code 1000 as the default in kernel driver, so that only boards
> >> requiring different value need to have this property?  Doing so makes
> >> the property optional rather than required.
> >>
> > 
> > Not sure if hardcoding it in the driver is the right approach.
> If it is a true feature of the device (i.e. if in the case of perfect
> front end electronics) this is the right option, then a default makes
> a lot of sense.  If that isn't the case (I suspect not) then if we
> drop it be optional chances are no one will bother thinking about it
> or trying to tune this at all.
> 
> Hence seems wrong to put a fairly arbitrary default value on it.
> However, we do need to still work with old device trees and new kernels
> so need to cope without it.
> 
> Hence to my mind, if we had started out with this in the first driver
> version, then the default would be a bad idea.  As we didn't then we
> really need to cope with nothing specified (as best we can) and so
> we do need a sensible default (or perhaps even sensible worst
> case default) in there.

Just to be sure, do I understand you correctly that you agree with the
property being in device tree?

If the device tree property is not specified the driver will just go on
to use the value "3" which was hardcoded earlier. In my opinion it is
better to allow users to change the sampling cycles by specifying or not
specifying this in the device tree rather than have a default value coded
in the driver. However this is just my opinion.

Also, some users might not need the somewhat worst case value of 1000. I
guess we could keep the driver patch the way it is right now and migrate
the property to be specified in our board dts file? So the property can
be picked up from the vf-colibri.dtsi or vf500-colibri.dtsi in the adc
node? Other boards can do the same?

We came up with the change after noticing huge reading discrepancies where
we had a 4 wire resistive touch screen connected to the ADC channels and
the driver sampled these channels at an interval of 10-20ms[1]. Once the
touchscreen came into picture, readings from temperature channel or others
showed deviations between 40000-60000. Somehow the temperature channel
seemed to be the most affected.

For a while, I thought the ts driver logic was at a fault, but Stefan pointed
out the discrepancies in the driver using a fixed clock cycle which was not
correct along the sampling time also being hardcoded. Stefan's "respect ADC
clocking limitations" and this patch are based on our above observations.

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/30/103

- Sanchayan.