On 8.4.2017 18:02, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 07/04/17 13:07, Mikko Koivunen wrote:
>> Added sysfs read/write sample frequency.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mikko Koivunen <mikko.koivunen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> A few comments inline but looks basically good to me.
>
> Odd little bit of hardware!
>
> Jonathan
>> ---
>> Tested on LeMaker HiKey with AOSP7.1 kernel 4.4.
>>
>> Patch v1->v2 changes:
>> multiline comments fixed
>>
>> drivers/iio/light/rpr0521.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/rpr0521.c b/drivers/iio/light/rpr0521.c
>> index 30c2592..e92a8bb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/light/rpr0521.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/light/rpr0521.c
>> @@ -132,6 +132,30 @@ static const struct rpr0521_gain_info {
>> },
>> };
>>
>> +struct rpr0521_samp_freq {
>> + int als_hz;
>> + int als_uhz;
>> + int pxs_hz;
>> + int pxs_uhz;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct rpr0521_samp_freq rpr0521_samp_freq_i[13] = {
>> +/* {ALS, PXS} */
> Hmm. You have them all listed here so that you can use the index as
> the register value. Maybe add a symbol to indicate in the comment
> which ones you can actually use here...
Ack.
>> + {0, 0, 0, 0}, /* 0000, 0=standby */
>> + {0, 0, 100, 0}, /* 0001 */
>> + {0, 0, 25, 0}, /* 0010 */
>> + {0, 0, 10, 0}, /* 0011 */
>> + {0, 0, 2, 500000}, /* 0100 */
>> + {10, 0, 20, 0}, /* 0101 */
>> + {10, 0, 10, 0}, /* 0110 */
>> + {10, 0, 2, 500000}, /* 0111 */
>> + {2, 500000, 20, 0}, /* 1000, measurement 100ms, sleep 300ms */
>> + {2, 500000, 10, 0}, /* 1001, measurement 100ms, sleep 300ms */
>> + {2, 500000, 0, 0}, /* 1010, high sensitivity mode */
>> + {2, 500000, 2, 500000}, /* 1011, high sensitivity mode */
>> + {20, 0, 20, 0} /* 1100, ALS_data x 0.5, see specification P.18 */
> Whilst this one is odd, I don't think your write function below will refuse
> to set it...
Good catch. I'll change write in patchset v3 to also skip 20.
>> +};
>> +
>> struct rpr0521_data {
>> struct i2c_client *client;
>>
>> @@ -152,9 +176,15 @@ struct rpr0521_data {
>> static IIO_CONST_ATTR(in_intensity_scale_available, RPR0521_ALS_SCALE_AVAIL);
>> static IIO_CONST_ATTR(in_proximity_scale_available, RPR0521_PXS_SCALE_AVAIL);
>>
>> +/* Start with easy freq first, whole table of freq combinations is more
> /*
> * Start...
>
> (kernel multiline comment syntax)...
Ack. Maybe it finally gets right on v3.
>> + * complicated.
>> + */
>> +static IIO_CONST_ATTR_SAMP_FREQ_AVAIL("2.5 10");
> 20 not available?
Not advertising that since output values need scaling on 20. Scaling is
easy to do, but so far not done.
>> +
>> static struct attribute *rpr0521_attributes[] = {
>> &iio_const_attr_in_intensity_scale_available.dev_attr.attr,
>> &iio_const_attr_in_proximity_scale_available.dev_attr.attr,
>> + &iio_const_attr_sampling_frequency_available.dev_attr.attr,
>> NULL,
>> };
>>
>> @@ -170,6 +200,7 @@ static const struct iio_chan_spec rpr0521_channels[] = {
>> .channel2 = IIO_MOD_LIGHT_BOTH,
>> .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) |
>> BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),
>> + .info_mask_shared_by_all = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ),
>> },
>> {
>> .type = IIO_INTENSITY,
>> @@ -178,12 +209,14 @@ static const struct iio_chan_spec rpr0521_channels[] = {
>> .channel2 = IIO_MOD_LIGHT_IR,
>> .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) |
>> BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),
>> + .info_mask_shared_by_all = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ),
>> },
>> {
>> .type = IIO_PROXIMITY,
>> .address = RPR0521_CHAN_PXS,
>> .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) |
>> BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),
>> + .info_mask_shared_by_all = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ),
>> }
>> };
>>
>> @@ -319,6 +352,56 @@ static int rpr0521_set_gain(struct rpr0521_data *data, int chan,
>> idx << rpr0521_gain[chan].shift);
>> }
>>
>> +static int rpr0521_read_samp_freq(struct rpr0521_data *data,
>> + enum iio_chan_type chan_type,
>> + int *val, int *val2)
>> +{
>> + int reg, ret;
>> +
>> + ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, RPR0521_REG_MODE_CTRL, ®);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
> I'd put a blank line here..
Ack.
>> + reg &= RPR0521_MODE_MEAS_TIME_MASK;
>> + if (reg >= ARRAY_SIZE(rpr0521_samp_freq_i))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (chan_type == IIO_INTENSITY) {
>> + *val = rpr0521_samp_freq_i[reg].als_hz;
>> + *val2 = rpr0521_samp_freq_i[reg].als_uhz;
>> + } else if (chan_type == IIO_PROXIMITY) {
>> + *val = rpr0521_samp_freq_i[reg].pxs_hz;
>> + *val2 = rpr0521_samp_freq_i[reg].pxs_uhz;
>> + } else {
>> + return -EINVAL;
> switch might be tidier.. Also, perhaps return directly from first two
> cases.
Ack.
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int rpr0521_write_samp_freq_common(struct rpr0521_data *data,
>> + enum iio_chan_type chan_type,
>> + int val, int val2)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + /* Ignore channel
> /*
> * Ignore channel
> ...
Ack.
>> + * both pxs and als are setup only to same freq because of simplicity
>> + */
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(rpr0521_samp_freq_i); i++)
>> + if ((val == rpr0521_samp_freq_i[i].als_hz)
>> + && (val2 == rpr0521_samp_freq_i[i].als_uhz)
>> + && (val == rpr0521_samp_freq_i[i].pxs_hz)
>> + && (val2 == rpr0521_samp_freq_i[i].pxs_uhz)) {
> Hmm. a lot of complexity introduced above by sort of allowing for them
> to be different (which would indeed be a real pain to handle! Why not
> just drop the ones you can never actually use?
Because I'm hoping to get/planning to do full implementation later. Just
replace multi line comment with read+matching other channels freq.
However got short of time so it looks like this now.
But you are right, maybe better option at this point would be using
switch-case and add the complexity back later if needed. Changing to v3.
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(rpr0521_samp_freq_i))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + return regmap_update_bits(data->regmap,
>> + RPR0521_REG_MODE_CTRL,
>> + RPR0521_MODE_MEAS_TIME_MASK,
>> + i);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int rpr0521_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> struct iio_chan_spec const *chan, int *val,
>> int *val2, long mask)
>> @@ -365,8 +448,16 @@ static int rpr0521_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> if (ret < 0)
>> return ret;
>> + return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;
>>
>> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ:
>> + mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>> + ret = rpr0521_read_samp_freq(data, chan->type, val, val2);
>> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
>> return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;
>> +
> Again, I think you are messing with original white space. Don't do
> that as it just gives odd diff results like this one...
Thanks for pointing out. It has bothered me before, but not enough to
investigate reason.
>> default:
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> @@ -384,8 +475,16 @@ static int rpr0521_write_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>> ret = rpr0521_set_gain(data, chan->address, val, val2);
>> mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> You are removing the blank line here.. (I think anyway!). Not a change
> that should be in this patch (or possibly happen at all - this one
> is in the personal taste category). If nothing else it made diff less
> readable!
Ack.
>> + return ret;
>>
>> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ:
>> + mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>> + ret = rpr0521_write_samp_freq_common(data,
>> + chan->type,
>> + val, val2);
>> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> return ret;
>> +
>> default:
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>
--
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
