update Pavel's email address.
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 09:37 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 01:02 +0800, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Hi Jonathan,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:19:07 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > >>>> @@ -60,9 +65,41 @@ static const u8 TSL2550_MODE_RANGE[2] = {
> > >>>> };
> > >>>>
> > >>>> /*
> > >>>> + * IDR to assign each registered device a unique id
> > >>>> + */
> > >>>> +static DEFINE_IDR(tsl2550_idr);
> > >>>> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(tsl2550_idr_lock);
> > >>>> +#define TSL2550_DEV_MAX 9
> > >>> Such an arbitrary limit is simply not acceptable.
> > >> Fair enough, but it is based on restricting the size
> > >> of the char array needed for the name when registering
> > >> with als. Hence single digit decimal maximum.
> > >> Do you suggest leaving it unrestricted (which makes code
> > >> a little fiddly given variable size of max idr) or some other
> > >> limit?
> > >
> > > The name size really isn't an issue. You won't notice 16 bytes instead
> > > of 9. And it's not like we'll have millions of these devices.
> > I agree, it's merely a question of picking some suitable limit. IDR's
> > on a 64 bit box will do something in the ball park of 2e18 which might
> > be an excessive limit ;) I'll leave this be for next version on basis
> > I'm in favour of moving this into the core and hence as you said this
> > will be irrelevant here anyway.
> > >>>> +static int tsl2550_get_id(void)
> > >>>> +{
> > >>>> + int ret, val;
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> +idr_again:
> > >>>> + if (unlikely(idr_pre_get(&tsl2550_idr, GFP_KERNEL) == 0))
> > >>>> + return -ENOMEM;
> > >>>> + spin_lock(&tsl2550_idr_lock);
> > >>>> + ret = idr_get_new(&tsl2550_idr, NULL, &val);
> > >>>> + if (unlikely(ret == -EAGAIN))
> > >>>> + goto idr_again;
> > >>>> + else if (unlikely(ret))
> > >>>> + return ret;
> > >>>> + if (val > TSL2550_DEV_MAX)
> > >>>> + return -ENOMEM;
> > >>>> + return val;
> > >>>> +}
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> +static void tsl2550_free_id(int val)
> > >>>> +{
> > >>>> + spin_lock(&tsl2550_idr_lock);
> > >>>> + idr_remove(&tsl2550_idr, val);
> > >>>> + spin_unlock(&tsl2550_idr_lock);
> > >>>> +}
> > >>> Having to implement this in _every_ ALS driver sounds wrong and
> > >>> painful. If uniqueness of any kind must be provided, it should be
> > >>> handled by the ALS core and not by individual drivers, otherwise you
> > >>> can be certain that at least one driver will get it wrong someday.
> > >> I agree. The reason this originally occurred is that the acpi layer
> > >> apparently doesn't allow for simultaneous probing of multiple drivers
> > >> and hence can get away with a simple counter and no locking.
> > >>
> > >>> I'd imaging that als-class devices are simply named als%u. Just like
> > >>> hwmon devices are named hwmon%u, input devices are names input%u and
> > >>> event%u, etc. I don't know of any class pushing the naming down to its
> > >>> drivers, do you? The only example I can remember are i2c drivers back
> > >>> in year 1999, when they were part of lm-sensors.I have personally put
> > >>> an end to this years ago.
> > >> This debate started in the als thread. Personally I couldn't care less
> > >> either way but it does need to be put to bed before that subsystem merges.
> > >> To my mind either approach is trivially handled in a userspace library
> > >> so it doesn't matter. I don't suppose you can remember what the original
> > >> reasons for squashing this naming approach were?
> > >
> > > Code duplication. Having the same unique-id handling code repeated in
> > > 50 drivers was no fun, as it did not add any value compared to a
> > > central handling.
> > Counter argument placed (cc'd Pavel and Corentin for this point)
> > is that having a generic name, e.g. hwmon0 and a name field in sysfs
> > is superfluous when we can combine the two.
> > >
> > >>>> @@ -296,13 +333,13 @@ static ssize_t tsl2550_show_lux1_input(struct device *dev,
> > >>>> return ret;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -static DEVICE_ATTR(lux1_input, S_IRUGO,
> > >>>> +static DEVICE_ATTR(illuminance, S_IRUGO,
> > >>>> tsl2550_show_lux1_input, NULL);
> > >>> Question: if I have a light sensing chip with two sensors, how are we
> > >>> going to handle it? Will we register 2 als class devices? The initial
> > >>> naming convention had the advantage that you could have more than one
> > >>> sensor per device, but I don't know if it is desirable in practice.
> > >> This only becomes and issue if we have two sensors measuring illuminance
> > >> (or approximation of it). The only two sensor chips I know of have one
> > >> broadband and one in the infrared tsl2561 and I think the isl chip with
> > >> a driver currently in misc. The combination of these two are needed to
> > >> calculate illuminance. Some of the original discussion went into how
> > >> to support separate access to the individual sensors. Decision was to
> > >> leave that question until it becomes relevant. Basically we would put
> > >> the current drivers in just supporting illuminance and see if anyone asked
> > >> for furthers support. One tricky aspect is what the units should be for
> > >> particular frequency ranges. At least illuminance is cleanly defined
> > >> (even if chips are only fairly coarsely approximating it.
> > >
> > > Hmm, this isn't the point I was raising. I was thinking of a light
> > > sensor chip which would sense light in different locations. Think chip
> > > with remote sensors. This is done frequently for thermal sensors, so I
> > > guess it could be done for light sensors as well. A practical
> > > application could be sensing the ambient light on two sides of an
> > > object, so that you get the correct measurement regardless of the
> > > position.
> > >
> > > I'm not saying such chips exist, I really don't know. I am just raising
> > > the question of how we'd handle them if they do. The current naming
> > > scheme implies that we'd need a separate als instance for each sensor,
> > > and I want you to be aware of this.
> > I agree with this being a possible issue. Zhang, what do you think to changing
> > the acpi driver to use luminance0 and documentation to match? Seems like
> > a cost free way of avoiding possible problems down the line.
> > >
> I don't have any objections to this.
> I think we should push the generic ALS patch upstream first and I'll
> refresh the ACPI ALS patch later.
>
> thanks,
> rui
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
