On Fri, 2024-09-13 at 09:55 +0000, Esteban Blanc wrote:
> On Mon Aug 26, 2024 at 9:27 AM UTC, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 14:45:20 +0200
> > Esteban Blanc <eblanc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > @@ -460,12 +517,21 @@ static int ad4030_conversion(struct ad4030_state *st,
> > > if (ret)
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > - if (st->mode != AD4030_OUT_DATA_MD_24_DIFF_8_COM)
> > > + if (st->chip->num_channels == 2)
> > > + ad4030_extract_interleaved(st->rx_data.raw,
> > > + &st->rx_data.diff[0],
> > > + &st->rx_data.diff[1]);
> > > +
> > > + if (st->mode != AD4030_OUT_DATA_MD_16_DIFF_8_COM &&
> > > + st->mode != AD4030_OUT_DATA_MD_24_DIFF_8_COM)
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > byte_index = BITS_TO_BYTES(chan->scan_type.realbits);
> > > - for (i = 0; i < st->chip->num_channels; i++)
> > > - st->rx_data.buffered[i].common = ((u8 *)&st-
> > > >rx_data.buffered[i].val)[byte_index];
> > > + /* Doing it backward to avoid overlap when reordering */
> > > + for (i = st->chip->num_channels - 1; i > 0; i--) {
> > > + st->rx_data.buffered_common[i].diff = st->rx_data.diff[i];
> > > + st->rx_data.buffered_common[i].common = ((u8 *)&st-
> > > >rx_data.diff[i])[byte_index];
> > > + }
> >
> > I wonder if doing it in place is actually worthwhile. Maybe unpack into a second
> > array? That is still fairly small and may make code easier to read.
>
> Okay sure
>
> > > +static const unsigned long ad4630_channel_masks[] = {
> > > + /* Differential only */
> > > + BIT(0) | BIT(2),
> > > + /* Differential with common byte */
> > > + GENMASK(3, 0),
> > The packing of data isn't going to be good. How bad to shuffle
> > to put the two small channels next to each other?
> > Seems like it means you will want to combine your deinterleave
> > and channel specific handling above, which is a bit fiddly but
> > not much worse than current code.
>
> I can do it since that was what I had done in the RFC in the first place.
> Nuno asked for in this email
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/0036d44542f8cf45c91c867f0ddd7b45d1904d6b.camel@xxxxxxxxx/
> :
>
> > > > * You're pushing the CM channels into the end. So when we a 2 channel device
> > > > we'll have:
>
> > > > in_voltage0 - diff
> > > > in_voltage1 - diff
> > > > in_voltage2 - CM associated with chan0
> > > > in_voltage0 - CM associated with chan1
> > > >
> > > > I think we could make it so the CM channel comes right after the channel
> > > > where
> > > > it's data belongs too. So for example, odd channels would be CM channels (and
> > > > labels could also make sense).
>
> So that's what I did here :D
>
> For the software side off things here it doesn't change a lot of things
> since we have to manipulate the data anyway, putting the extra byte at the
> end or in between is no extra work.
> For the offload engine however, it should be easier to ask for 24 bits
> then 8 bits for each channel as it would return two u32 per "hardware
> channel".
>
> In order to avoid having two different layouts, I was kind of sold by
> Nuno's idea of having the CM in between each diff channel.
>
Tbh, I was not even thinking about the layout when I proposed the arrangement. Just
made sense to me (from a logical point of view) to have them together as they relate
to the same physical channel. FWIW, we're also speaking bytes in here so not sure if
it's that important (or bad).
That said, as we should have labels anyways, I'm not being the blocker if everyone
else prefers to have the RFC layout :)
- Nuno Sá
