On 2021-07-30 08:49, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2021-07-29 17:56, Liam Beguin wrote:
>> On Wed Jul 28, 2021 at 3:19 AM EDT, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-28 02:21, Liam Beguin wrote:
>>>> On Fri Jul 23, 2021 at 5:16 PM EDT, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-07-21 05:06, Liam Beguin wrote:
>>>>>> From: Liam Beguin <lvb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some ADCs use IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_{NANO,MICRO} scale types.
>>>>>> Add support for these to allow using the iio-rescaler with them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Liam Beguin <lvb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c b/drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c
>>>>>> index d0669fd8eac5..2b73047365cc 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c
>>>>>> @@ -41,6 +41,20 @@ int rescale_process_scale(struct rescale *rescale, int scale_type,
>>>>>> do_div(tmp, 1000000000LL);
>>>>>> *val = tmp;
>>>>>> return scale_type;
>>>>>> + case IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_NANO:
>>>>>> + tmp = ((s64)*val * 1000000000LL + *val2) * rescale->numerator;
>>>>>> + tmp = div_s64(tmp, rescale->denominator);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + *val = div_s64(tmp, 1000000000LL);
>>>>>> + *val2 = tmp - *val * 1000000000LL;
>>>>>> + return scale_type;
>>>>
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> My objection from v5 still stands. Did you forget or did you simply send
>>>>> the
>>>>> wrong patch?
>>>>
>>>> Apologies, again I didn't mean to make it seem like I ignored your comments.
>>>> I tried your suggestion, but had issues when *val2 would overflow into
>>>> the integer part.
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>>>
>>> Not saying anything about it not working does indeed make it seem like
>>> you
>>> ignored it :-) Or did I just miss where you said this? Anyway, no
>>> problem,
>>> it can be a mess dealing with a string of commits when there are
>>> numerous
>>> things to take care of between each iteration. And it's very easy to
>>> burn
>>> out and just back away. Please don't do that!
>>
>> It was my mistake. Thanks for the encouragement :-)
>>
>>>
>>>> Even though what I has was more prone to integer overflow with the first
>>>> multiplication, I thought it was still a valid solution as it passed the
>>>> tests.
>>>
>>> I did state that you'd need to add overflow handling from the fraction
>>> calculation and handling for negative values, so it was no surprise that
>>> my original sketchy suggestion didn't work as-is.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Untested suggestion, this time handling negative values and
>>>>> canonicalizing any
>>>>> overflow from the fraction calculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> neg = *val < 0 || *val2 < 0;
>>>>> tmp = (s64)abs(*val) * rescale->numerator;
>>>>> rem = do_div(tmp, rescale->denominator);
>>>>> *val = tmp;
>>>>> tmp = rem * 1000000000LL + (s64)abs(*val2) * rescale->numerator;
>>>>> do_div(tmp, rescale->denominator);
>>>>> *val2 = do_div(tmp, 1000000000LL);
>>>>> *val += tmp;
>>>>> if (neg) {
>>>>> if (*val < 0)
>>>>> *val = -*val;
>>>>> else
>>>>> *val2 = -*val;
>>>
>>> This last line should of course be *val2 = -*val2;
>>> Sorry.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll look into this suggestion.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> Starting from what you suggested, here's what I came up with.
>> I also added a few test cases to cover corner cases.
>>
>> if (scale_type == IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_NANO)
>> mult = 1000000000LL;
>> else
>> mult = 1000000LL;
>> /*
>> * For IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_{MICRO,NANO} scale types if *val OR
>> * *val2 is negative the schan scale is negative
>> */
>> neg = *val < 0 || *val2 < 0;
>>
>> tmp = (s64)abs(*val) * (s32)abs(rescale->numerator);
>
> Small nit, but I think abs() returns a signed type compatible
> with the argument type. I.e. (s32)abs(rescale->...) where both
> numerator and denominator are already s32 could just as well
> be written without the cast as plain old abs(rescale->...)
>
>
>> *val = div_s64_rem(tmp, (s32)abs(rescale->denominator), &rem);
>>
>> tmp = (s64)rem * mult +
>> (s64)abs(*val2) * (s32)abs(rescale->numerator);
>> tmp = div_s64(tmp, (s32)abs(rescale->denominator));
>>
>> *val += div_s64_rem(tmp, mult, val2);
>>
>> /*
>> * If the schan scale or only one of the rescaler elements is
>> * negative, the combined scale is negative.
>> */
>> if (neg || ((rescale->numerator < 0) ^ (rescale->denominator < 0)))
Hang on, that's not right. If the value and only one of the rescaler
elements is negative, the result is positive. || is not the correct
logical operation.
>> *val = -*val;
>
> Unconditionally negating *val doesn't negate the combined value when
> *val is zero and *val2 isn't. My test "if (*val < 0)" above attempting
> to take care of this case is clearly not right. It should of course be
> "if (*val > 0)" since *val is not yet negated. Duh!
>
> In fact, I think a few tests scaling to/from the [-1,1] interval
> would be benefitial for this exact reason.
So, with both these issues taken care of:
if (neg ^ ((rescale->numerator < 0) ^ (rescale->denominator < 0))) {
if (*val > 0)
*val = -*val;
else
*val2 = -*val2;
}
(bitwise ^ is safe since all operands come from logical operations, i.e.
they are either zero or one and nothing else)
Cheers,
Peter
