Re: [PATCH v3] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: add GPIO support

[Justin Chen <justinpopo6@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:23 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:48:49 -0600
> David Lechner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 2/20/19 6:00 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:10:53 +0100
> > > David Lechner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 2/12/19 9:57 PM, justinpopo6@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >>> From: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>
> > >>> The ADS79XX has GPIO pins that can be used. Add support for the GPIO
> > >>> pins using the GPIO chip framework.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> ---
> > >>
> > >> It will be better to split this up into two patches[1]. One to replace
> > >> all uses of indio_dev->mlock with the new local lock and then another to
> > >> add GPIO support.
> > >>
> > >> How are you using/testing this patch? Do we need device tree bindings?
> > >>
I have a custom board with a SoC that is connected to the ADC with
SPI. You don't need any addition device tree binding. Just whatever is
already necessary for the ti-ads7950 driver.
> > >> It will also help reviewers if you add a note about what you changed in
> > >> each revision of the patch when you resubmit. The usual way to do this
> > >> is something like:
> > >>
> > >>       v3 changes:
> > >>
> > >>       - Fixed unlocking mutex too many times in ti_ads7950_init_gpio()
> > >>
> > >> It also is nice to wait a few days at least before submitting the next
> > >> revision to give people some time to respond.
Will do.
> > >
> > > Agreed with all comments except the endian one.
> > > SPI doesn't define an endianness of data on the wire, so we may need
> > > to convert to match whatever ordering the ti chip expects.
> > > I would expect things to be thoroughly broken if we remove those
> > > conversions - particularly as I doubt this is being tested with a
> > > big endian host!
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> >
> > I'm a bit confused then. I got this idea from include/linux/spi.h, which
> > says:
> >
> >   * In-memory data values are always in native CPU byte order, translated
> >   * from the wire byte order (big-endian except with SPI_LSB_FIRST).  So
> >   * for example when bits_per_word is sixteen, buffers are 2N bytes long
> >   * (@len = 2N) and hold N sixteen bit words in CPU byte order.
> >
> >
> > And in the most recent patches to the ti-ads7950 driver where we switched
> > from 8-bit words to 16-bit words, I had to remove the calls to cpu_to_be16()
> > to keep things working.
> Ah, my apologies, I didn't look at this closely enough.
>
> I was assuming we weren't in 16 bit mode here - oops.
>
> Otherwise this wouldn't have any hope of working... Except I'm assuming it is...
> hohum.
>
> Hmm. Given the result of that cpu_to_be16 will be to swap (as almost certainly
> on le system), I'm going to hazzard a guess that the ti device is expecting
> little endian and we should be setting SPI_LSB_FIRST.
> Which is odd because the data sheet definitely looks MSB first. Not to mention
> this isn't be done elsewhere in the driver.
>
> So only option I can fall back on is that it is being used on a be system
> (hence noop) or is a forward port of an older patch for the driver that missed
> your 16 bit change...
>
Yes sorry! This was my mistake. I was juggling two different kernel
versions and one of them didn't have those changes.

Thanks for the review, will address the comments and submit a v4:)

Justin

> >
> > I realize that I am only using one SPI controller, so I may be making a bad
> > assumption here, but it seems to me that it is up to the SPI controller to
> > make sure the bits get sent over the wire in the correct order and we
> > shouldn't have to worry about it here. We are implicitly telling the SPI
> > controller that we need big-endian over the wire by omitting the SPI_LSB_FIRST
> > flag here:
> >
> >       spi->bits_per_word = 16;
> >       spi->mode |= SPI_CS_WORD;
> >       ret = spi_setup(spi);
> >
> You are entirely correct, I was too lazy and had forgotten your change to
> move to 16 bits.
>
> Jonathan
>