On 05/01/2017 09:27, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Schulz > <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Chen-Yu, >> >> On 05/01/2017 06:42, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Quentin Schulz >>> <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [...] >>>> + >>>> +#define AXP20X_ADC_RATE_MASK (3 << 6) >>>> +#define AXP20X_ADC_RATE_25HZ (0 << 6) >>>> +#define AXP20X_ADC_RATE_50HZ BIT(6) >>> >>> Please be consistent with the format. >>> >>>> +#define AXP20X_ADC_RATE_100HZ (2 << 6) >>>> +#define AXP20X_ADC_RATE_200HZ (3 << 6) >>>> + >>>> +#define AXP22X_ADC_RATE_100HZ (0 << 6) >>>> +#define AXP22X_ADC_RATE_200HZ BIT(6) >>>> +#define AXP22X_ADC_RATE_400HZ (2 << 6) >>>> +#define AXP22X_ADC_RATE_800HZ (3 << 6) >>> >>> These are power-of-2 multiples of some base rate. May I suggest >>> a formula macro instead. Either way, you seem to be using only >>> one value. Will this be made configurable in the future? >>> >> >> Yes, I could use a formula macro instead. No plan to make it >> configurable, should I make it configurable? > > I don't see a use case for that atm. > >>>> + >>>> +#define AXP20X_ADC_CHANNEL(_channel, _name, _type, _reg) \ >>>> + { \ >>>> + .type = _type, \ >>>> + .indexed = 1, \ >>>> + .channel = _channel, \ >>>> + .address = _reg, \ >>>> + .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | \ >>>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE), \ >>>> + .datasheet_name = _name, \ >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> +#define AXP20X_ADC_CHANNEL_OFFSET(_channel, _name, _type, _reg) \ >>>> + { \ >>>> + .type = _type, \ >>>> + .indexed = 1, \ >>>> + .channel = _channel, \ >>>> + .address = _reg, \ >>>> + .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | \ >>>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) |\ >>>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET),\ >>>> + .datasheet_name = _name, \ >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> +struct axp20x_adc_iio { >>>> + struct iio_dev *indio_dev; >>>> + struct regmap *regmap; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +enum axp20x_adc_channel { >>>> + AXP20X_ACIN_V = 0, >>>> + AXP20X_ACIN_I, >>>> + AXP20X_VBUS_V, >>>> + AXP20X_VBUS_I, >>>> + AXP20X_TEMP_ADC, >>> >>> PMIC_TEMP would be better. And please save a slot for TS input. >>> >> >> ACK. >> >> Hum.. I'm wondering what should be the IIO type of the TS input channel >> then? The TS Pin can be used in two modes: either to monitor the >> temperature of the battery or as an external ADC, at least that's what I >> understand from the datasheet. > > AFAIK the battery charge/discharge high/low temperature threshold > registers take values in terms of voltage, not actual temperature. > And the temperature readout kind of depends on the thermoresistor > one is using. So I think "voltage" would be the proper type. > ACK. Should I just add TS_IN in axp20x_adc_channel enum but not add it in the exposed IIO channels ("saving" the slot but not using it)? >> >>>> + AXP20X_GPIO0_V, >>>> + AXP20X_GPIO1_V, >>> >>> Please skip a slot for "battery instantaneous power". >>> >>>> + AXP20X_BATT_V, >>>> + AXP20X_BATT_CHRG_I, >>>> + AXP20X_BATT_DISCHRG_I, >>>> + AXP20X_IPSOUT_V, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +enum axp22x_adc_channel { >>>> + AXP22X_TEMP_ADC = 0, >>> >>> Same comments as AXP20X_TEMP_ADC. >>> >>>> + AXP22X_BATT_V, >>>> + AXP22X_BATT_CHRG_I, >>>> + AXP22X_BATT_DISCHRG_I, >>>> +}; >>> >>> Shouldn't these channel numbers be exported as part of the device tree >>> bindings? At the very least, they shouldn't be changed. >>> >> >> I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you mean you want a >> consistent numbering between the AXP20X and the AXP22X, so that >> AXP22X_BATT_V would have the same channel number than AXP20X_BATT_V? >> >> Could you explain a bit more your thoughts on the channel numbers being >> exported as part of the device tree bindings? > > What I meant was that, since you are referencing the channels in the > device tree, the numbering scheme would be part of the device tree > binding, and should never be changed. So either these would be macros > in include/dt-bindings/, or a big warning should be put before it. > ACK. > But see my reply on patch 7, about do we actually need to expose this > in the device tree. > I don't know what's the best. >>> Also please add a comment saying that the channels are numbered >>> in the order of their respective registers, and not the table >>> describing the ADCs in the datasheet (9.7 Signal Capture for AXP209 >>> and 9.5 E-Gauge for AXP221). >>> >> >> Yes I can. >> >> What about Rob wanting channel numbers to start at zero for each >> different IIO type (i.e., today we have AXP22X_BATT_CHRG_I being >> exported as in_current1_raw whereas he wants in_current0_raw). > > Hmm... I missed this. Are you talking about IIO or hwmon? IIRC > hwmon numbers things starting at 1. > About IIO. Today, we have exposed: in_voltage0_raw for acin_v in_current1_raw for acin_i in_voltage2_raw for vbus_v in_current3_raw for vbus_i in_temp4_raw for adc_temp in_voltage5_raw for gpio0_v in_voltage6_raw for gpio1_v in_voltage7_raw for batt_v in_current8_raw for batt_chrg_i in_current9_raw for batt_dischrg_i in_voltage10_raw for ipsout_v but I think what Rob wants is: in_voltage0_raw acin_v in_current0_raw for acin_i in_voltage1_raw for vbus_v in_current1_raw for vbus_i in_temp_raw for adc_temp in_voltage2_raw for gpio0_v in_voltage3_raw for gpio1_v in_voltage4_raw for batt_v in_current2_raw for batt_chrg_i in_current3_raw for batt_dischrg_i in_voltage5_raw for ipsout_v >> [...] >>>> +static int axp22x_adc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, >>>> + struct iio_chan_spec const *channel, int *val, >>>> + int *val2) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct axp20x_adc_iio *info = iio_priv(indio_dev); >>>> + int size = 12, ret; >>>> + >>>> + switch (channel->channel) { >>>> + case AXP22X_BATT_DISCHRG_I: >>>> + size = 13; >>>> + case AXP22X_TEMP_ADC: >>>> + case AXP22X_BATT_V: >>>> + case AXP22X_BATT_CHRG_I: >>> >>> According to the datasheet, AXP22X_BATT_CHRG_I is also 13 bits wide. >>> >> >> Where did you get that? >> >> Also, the datasheet is inconsistent: >> - 9.5 E-Gauge Fuel Gauge system => the min value is at 0x0 and the max >> value at 0xfff for all channels, that's 12 bits. >> - 10.1.4 ADC Data => all channels except battery discharge current are >> on 12 bits (8 high, 4 low). > > My datasheets (AXP221 v1.6, AXP221s v1.2, AXP223 v1.1, all Chinese) say > in 10.1.4: > > - 7A: battery charge current high 5 bits > - 7B: battery charge current low 8 bits > - 7C: battery discharge current high 5 bits > - 7D: battery discharge current low 8 bits > AXP223 v1.1 in English in 10.1.4[1]: - 7A: battery charge current high 8 bits - 7B: battery charge current low 4 bits - 7C: battery discharge current high 8 bits - 7D: battery discharge current low 5 bits Note that it's 8 bits for high and 4/5 bits for low while you wrote 4/5 bits high and low 8 bits (typos or actually what's written in the datasheet?). Hum.. from the reg reading function[2] I would say that the correct formula is high on 8 bits and low on 4/5 bits. So hum.. what do we do? [1] http://dl.linux-sunxi.org/AXP/AXP223-en.pdf [2] http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/mfd/axp20x.h#L564 >> >> [...] >>>> +static int axp22x_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, >>>> + struct iio_chan_spec const *chan, int *val, >>>> + int *val2, long mask) >>>> +{ >>>> + switch (mask) { >>>> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET: >>>> + *val = -2667; >>> >>> Datasheet says -267.7 C, or -2677 here. >>> >> >> The formula in the datasheet is (in milli Celsius): >> processed = raw * 100 - 266700; >> >> while the IIO framework asks for a scale and an offset which are then >> applied as: >> processed = (raw + offset) * scale; >> >> Thus by factorizing, we get: >> processed = (raw - 2667) * 100; > > What I meant was that your lower end value is off by one degree, > -266.7 in your code vs -267.7 in the datasheet. > Indeed. Thanks. >> >> [...] >>>> +static int axp20x_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct axp20x_adc_iio *info; >>>> + struct iio_dev *indio_dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); >>>> + >>>> + info = iio_priv(indio_dev); >>> >>> Nit: you could just reverse the 2 declarations above and join this >>> line after struct axp20x_adc_iio *info; >>> >>>> + regmap_write(info->regmap, AXP20X_ADC_EN1, 0); >>>> + regmap_write(info->regmap, AXP20X_ADC_EN2, 0); >>> >>> The existing VBUS power supply driver enables the VBUS ADC bits itself, >>> and does not check them later on. This means if one were to remove this >>> axp20x-adc module, the voltage/current readings in the VBUS power supply >>> would be invalid. Some sort of workaround would be needed here in this >>> driver of the VBUS driver. >>> >> >> That would be one reason to migrate the VBUS driver to use the IIO >> channels, wouldn't it? > > It is, preferably without changing the device tree. > Yes, of course. Thanks, Quentin -- Quentin Schulz, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html