On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:17:54 +0200 Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Mehdi and Jonathan, > > Just my take on couple of comments from Jonathan :) I still have my own > review to do though... > > On 3/19/23 18:20, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 00:48:36 +0100 > > Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Refactor the kx022a driver implementation to make it more > >> generic and extensible. > >> Add the chip_info structure will to the driver's private > >> data to hold all the device specific infos. > >> Move the enum, struct and constants definitions to the header > >> file. > > > > You also introduce an i2c_device_id table > > > > Without that I think module autoloading will be broken anyway so that's > > definitely a good thing to add. > > I am pretty sure the autoloading worked for OF-systems. But yes, adding > the i2c_device_id is probably a good idea. Thanks. Ah. Maybe that issue only occurred for SPI - I'd assumed it was more general. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/?id=5fa6863ba692 > > > A few comments inline. Mostly around reducing the name changes. > > Wild cards (or simply shorted 'generic' prefixes like KX_) > > almost always bite back in the long run. Hence we generally just try > > to name things after the first device that they were relevant to. > > I must say I disagree on this with you Jonathan. I know wildcards tend > to get confusing - but I still like the idea of showing which of the > definitions are IC specific and which ones are generic or at least used > by more than one variant - especially as long as we only have two > supported ICs. I definitely like the macro naming added by Mehdi. This > approach has been very helpful for me for example in the BD718x7 > (BD71837/BD71847/BD71850) PMIC driver. My take on this is: > > 1) I like the generic KX_define. We already have other kionix drivers that don't use these defines. This is less of an issue if they are very local - so pushed down to the C file, but I still don't like the implication that they extend to a broad range of devices. > 2) I would not try adding wildcards like KX_X22 - to denote support for > 122 and 022 - while not supporting 132 - in my experience - that won't > scale. I think this already runs into this problem or at least sets the driver up to hit it very soon. The reality is that these definitions are shared by the 2 parts supported so far. 3rd part comes along and I'd be willing to place a bet that at least one of these definitions doesn't apply. So we end up with a mess converting it back to a specific name. I've gone down this path many times before and it very rarely works out. > 3) I definitely like the idea of using exact model number prefix for > 'stuff' which is intended to work only on one exact . When you have 2 devices it is easy to separate the 'generic' from the 'specific'. That breaks when you have 3. If we are sure there won't be a 3rd device supported by this driver then fair enough... > > Regarding the 3) - I am not so strict on how the register/mask defines > are handled - I _like_ the 1) 2) 3) approach above - but mask/register > defines tend to get set (correctly) once and not required to be looked > up after this. But. When the 'stuff' is functions - this gets very > useful as one is very often required to see which functions are executed > on which IC variant. Same goes to structs. Given they tend to be accessed via a function pointer, even functions are only set up the once. For these I'm fine with a nasty listing type approach with multiple part names in the function defintion. That doesn't scale great either as lots of parts get added but it at least calls out which function covers which parts. > > So, if we manage to convince Jonathan about the naming, then I like what > yoo had here! I would hovever do it in two steps. I would at first do > renaming patch where the generic defines were renamed - without any > functional changes - and only then add the kx132 stuff in a subsequent > patch. That would simplify seeing which changes are just renaming and > which are functional ones. > > But here, I must go with the wind - if subsystem maintainer says the > code should not have naming like this - then I have no say over it... :/ If we have truely universal defines - sometimes this happens for WHO AM I registers for example as they are the same over all devices from a manufacturer (more or less anyway) then the broad forms are fine. Otherwise it just tends to end up as a mess if lots of parts added. > > >> > >> +static const struct i2c_device_id kx022a_i2c_id[] = { > >> + { .name = "kx022a", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&kx_chip_info[KX022A] }, > > If there are a small set and we aren't ever going to index the chip_info structure > > we might be better off not bothering with the enum and instead using a separate > > instance of the structure for each chip. > > > > I kind of like also the table added by Mehdi. I admit I was at first > just thinking that we should have a pointer to the struct here without > any tables - but... After I took a peek in the kionix-kx022a.c - I kind > of liked the table and not exporting the struct names. So, I don't have > a strong opinion on this. > > I think it's worth noting that this driver could (maybe easily enough) > be extended to support also a few other kionix accelerometers. Maybe, if > we don't scare Mehdi away, we will see a few other variants supported as > well ;) This one wasn't a particularly important bit of feedback. I'm fine with the table, though seems slightly less readable to my eyes. > > >> data->regmap = regmap; > >> data->dev = dev; > >> data->irq = irq; > >> - data->odr_ns = KX022A_DEFAULT_PERIOD_NS; > >> + data->odr_ns = KX_DEFAULT_PERIOD_NS; > >> mutex_init(&data->mutex); > >> > >> - idev->channels = kx022a_channels; > >> - idev->num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(kx022a_channels); > >> - idev->name = "kx022-accel"; > > > > Ah. Missed this naming in original driver review. We only normally > > postfix with accel in devices that have multiple sensors with separate > > drivers. Don't think that is true of the kx022a. > > Ouch. I am not 100% sure but may be you didn't miss it. It may be I just > missed fixing this because your comment here sounds somewhat familiar to > me! (Or then you commented on suffix in driver-name). Meh. This stuff happens and at the end of the day it's a magic string that userspace can match against. No userspace knows all of them anyway so most likely it's just provided in a 'selection' box for a user or encoded in a custom script / config file. So not hugely important for it to have the simplest possible form. > > > It's ABI so we are stuck with it, but avoid repeating that issue > > for new devices. > > > >> > >> +enum kx022a_device_type { > >> + KX022A, > >> +}; > > > > As below. I'd avoid using the enum unless needed. > > That can make sense where a driver supports lots of devices but I don't think > > it does here. > > Well, I know it is usually not too clever to be prepared for the future > stuff too well. But - I don't think the enum and table are adding much > of complexity? I am saying this as I think this driver could be extended > to support also kx022 (without the A), kx023, kx122. I've also seen some > references to model kx022A-120B (but I have no idea what's the story > there or if that IC is publicly available). Maybe Mehdi would like to > extend this driver further after the KX132 is done ;) Not adding a lot, but you are going to end up with adding one line to an enum in the header for each new device, vs one extern line. So I'm not sure it saves anything either. > > >> -int kx022a_probe_internal(struct device *dev); > >> -extern const struct regmap_config kx022a_regmap; > >> +struct kx022a_chip_info { > >> + const char *name; > >> + enum kx022a_device_type type; > >> + const struct regmap_config *regmap_config; > >> + const struct iio_chan_spec *channels; > >> + unsigned int num_channels; > >> + unsigned int fifo_length; > >> + u8 who; > > Some of these are no immediately obvious so either rename the > > field so it is more obvious what it is, or add comments. > > I would vote for adding a comment :) I like the who. Both the band and > this member here :) Data-sheet has register named as "who_am_i" - so I > don't think this name is too obfuscating - and what matters to me - it > is short yet meaningful. > > >> + u8 id; > >> + u8 cntl; > >> + u8 cntl2; > >> + u8 odcntl; > >> + u8 buf_cntl1; > >> + u8 buf_cntl2; > >> + u8 buf_clear; > >> + u8 buf_status1; > >> + u16 buf_smp_lvl_mask; > >> + u8 buf_read; > >> + u8 inc1; > >> + u8 inc4; > >> + u8 inc5; > >> + u8 inc6; > >> + u8 xout_l; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +struct kx022a_data { > > > > Why move this to the header? Unless there is a strong reason > > I'd prefer this to stay down in the .c file. > > So would I. It's definitely nice to be able to see the struct in the > same file where the code referencing it is. > > > Yours, > -- Matti Thanks, Jonathan >
