On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 4:22 PM Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 08:38:46PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 7:02 PM Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 02:18:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:42 PM Dmitry Rokosov
> > > > <DDRokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > > > + wait_ms = (USEC_PER_SEC * MSEC_PER_SEC) / freq_uhz;
> > > >
> > > > This looks very odd from a physics perspective: sec * sec * sec == sec ?!
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you meant some HZ* macros from units.h?
> > >
> > > I suppose because of UHZ calculation I have to use NANO instead of
> > > USEC_PER_SEC in the following line:
> > >
> > > freq_uhz = msa311_odr_table[odr].val * USEC_PER_SEC +
> > > msa311_odr_table[odr].val2;
> > >
> > > But below line is right from physics perspective. 1sec = 1/Hz, so
> > > msec = (USEC_PER_SEC / freq_uhz) * MSEC_PER_SEC:
I believe the first one should be HZ_PER_MHZ, then it will be fine.
> > > wait_ms = (USEC_PER_SEC * MSEC_PER_SEC) / freq_uhz;
> > >
> > > Or do you mean that I should change MSEC_PER_SEC to just MILLI?
> >
> > 1 / Hz = 1 sec. That's how physics defines it. Try to figure out what
> > you meant by above multiplications / divisions and come up with the
> > best that fits your purposes.
>
> From my point of view, I've already implemented the best way to calculate
> how much time I need to wait for the next data chunk based on ODR Hz
> value :-)
>
> ODR value from the table has val integer part and val2 in microHz.
> By this line we calculate microHz conversion to take into account val2
> part:
>
> freq_uhz = msa311_odr_table[odr].val * USEC_PER_SEC +
> msa311_odr_table[odr].val2;
>
> By the next line we try to calculate miliseconds for msleep() from ODR
> microHz value:
>
> wait_ms = (USEC_PER_SEC * MSEC_PER_SEC) / freq_uhz;
>
> (USEC_PER_SEC / freq_uhz) => seconds
> seconds * MSEC_PER_SEC => milliseconds>
> USEC_PER_SEC and MSEC_PER_SEC are just coefficients, they are not
> measured in "seconds" units.
Nope, it's a mistake. Those multipliers imply the unit. The rest are
the numbers. See above how to fix this (as far as I can tell).
...
> > > > > + if (err) {
> > > > > + dev_err(dev, "cannot update freq (%d)\n", err);
> > > > > + goto failed;
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > Why is this inside the loop and more important under lock? Also you
> > > > may cover the initial error code by this message when moving it out of
> > > > the loop and lock.
> > > >
> > > > Ditto for other code snippets in other function(s) where applicable.
> > >
> > > Yes, I can move dev_err() outside of loop. But all ODR search loop
> > > should be under lock fully, because other msa311 operations should not
> > > be executed when we search proper ODR place.
> >
> > I didn't suggest getting rid of the lock.
> Sorry, I didn't get you... But I fully agree with you about dev_err()
> movement.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. The dev_err() should be outside of
critical section, for example:
mutex_unlock();
if (ret) {
dev_err(...);
return ret;
}
...
return 0;
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
