On 13.10.2015 09:09, Marc Andre wrote:
On 12.10.2015 16:09, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
On 10/12/2015 02:53 PM, Marc Andre wrote:
On 12.10.2015 12:26, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
On 10/12/2015 10:52 AM, Marc Andre wrote:
This driver adds support for the Linear LTC26x6, LTC26x7 and
LTC26x9 I2C
DAC chips.
Those look like they are very much register map compatible to what is
supported by the AD5064 driver. It makes sense to add support
for them
there
instead of having a separate driver.
I see that the interfaces are similar. Not all features of the
ADxxxx are
supported by the LTC26XX. e.g. it doesn't support the different
power down
modes. It also doesn't support the configuration register.
Other features available to AD which are not available to the LTC
are LDAC
by software, RESET and CLEAR commands. Those commands are currently
not in
use by the driver, but in the future, if those commands are used, a
separation would have to be done to avoid issues with the LTC.
I first also thought that the address / command location is
different as the
AD5064 sends 4 bytes and "AD5064_ADDR(x)" is "((x) << 20)". By further
reviewing I see that this only applies to SPI connected devices,
while I2C
connected devices have 3 bytes as LTC26xx.
I am quite open. I have the tendency to suggest a separate ltc26xx
driver,
also because it would allow simpler identification of the driver and
separate evolution. (Someone would need to know that AD4064 is
compatible to
LTC26xx) I also think large drivers containing many separations between
similar, but not equal devices are more risky to break on changes.
No one
has all those devices available for test. But I am a new contributor
to the
Kernel, thus I am interested to listen to the experts... :-)
It's a subset, but it is a clean subset. The LTC26xx don't have any
extra
functionality not yet supported by the AD5064 driver.
And I'm pretty convinced the chip was purposefully designed to be
register
map compatible, would be a shame not to make use of that. Means we
only have
to fix things in one driver if we find a bug, or e.g. if we want the
feature
of being able to update all channels at the same time.
I started testing with the ad5064 driver, but the driver seams to be
quite broken for i2c. Before I fix all of it, I just want to confirm
that I didn't get it wrong:
- ad5064_write_raw() expects the ad5064_write() to return 0 if
success. But ad5064_i2c_write() directly returns the return value of
i2c_master_send() which is the number of bytes sent if successful. I
need to add a wrap to convert the return value of i2c_master_send() to
0 if the correct number of bytes is written.
- #define AD5064_CHANNEL() sets the shift as follows: .shift = 20 - bits
ad5064_write then applies this shift before sending it to the i2c/spi
command. This assumes that the number of data bits is 20 for all DAC
chips. As written yesterday this seams to be only true for the SPI
type chips. The I2C type chips use 2 bytes (16 bits).
Do you know if the ad5064 driver has been used for any i2c type device
yet? Was it tested?
If I want to implement LTC2617 (and fix the other i2c devices), I will
have to do a few patches and also make some changes to structures
(i.e. adjust the shift bits based on sensor type). I am ok to do that,
but just want to confirm first that this is your intention.
Marc
After further thoughts I wonder if would make sense to split of AD5629
and AD5629 from the AD5064 driver and keep AD5064 driver for SPI based
devices with 20 data bits and make a new driver for I2C based devices
with 16 data bits.
I could submit a new driver which combines AD5629 and LTC2617 (and
similar devices).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
