Hi Philipp,
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:29:09AM +0100, Philipp Rossak wrote:
> For adding newer sensor some basic rework of the code is necessary.
>
> This patch reworks the driver to be able to handle more than one
> thermal sensor. Newer SoC like the A80 have 4 thermal sensors.
> Because of this the maximal sensor count value was set to 4.
>
> The sensor_id value is set during sensor registration and is for each
> registered sensor indiviual. This makes it able to differntiate the
> sensors when the value is read from the register.
>
> In function sun4i_gpadc_read_raw(), the sensor number of the ths sensor
> was directly set to 0 (sun4i_gpadc_temp_read(x,x,0)). This selects
> in the temp_read function automatically sensor 0. A check for the
> sensor_id is here not required since the old sensors only have one
> thermal sensor. In addition to that is the sun4i_gpadc_read_raw()
> function only used by the "older" sensors (before A33) where the
> thermal sensor was a cobination of an adc and a thermal sensor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philipp Rossak <embed3d@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/adc/sun4i-gpadc-iio.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> include/linux/mfd/sun4i-gpadc.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/sun4i-gpadc-iio.c b/drivers/iio/adc/sun4i-gpadc-iio.c
> index 51ec0104d678..ac9ad2f8232f 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/sun4i-gpadc-iio.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/sun4i-gpadc-iio.c
> @@ -67,12 +67,13 @@ struct gpadc_data {
> unsigned int tp_adc_select;
> unsigned int (*adc_chan_select)(unsigned int chan);
> unsigned int adc_chan_mask;
> - unsigned int temp_data;
> + unsigned int temp_data[MAX_SENSOR_COUNT];
> int (*sample_start)(struct sun4i_gpadc_iio *info);
> int (*sample_end)(struct sun4i_gpadc_iio *info);
> bool has_bus_clk;
> bool has_bus_rst;
> bool has_mod_clk;
> + int sensor_count;
> };
>
I've noticed that for H3, A83T, A64 (at least), if DATA reg of sensor 0
is e.g. 0x80, DATA reg of sensor N is at 0x80 + 0x04 * N.
Is that verified for other SoCs? Does anyone have some input on this?
We could then just use temp_data as the DATA reg "base" and increment by
0x4 depending on the sensor id instead of using a fixed-size array.
> static const struct gpadc_data sun4i_gpadc_data = {
> @@ -82,9 +83,10 @@ static const struct gpadc_data sun4i_gpadc_data = {
> .tp_adc_select = SUN4I_GPADC_CTRL1_TP_ADC_SELECT,
> .adc_chan_select = &sun4i_gpadc_chan_select,
> .adc_chan_mask = SUN4I_GPADC_CTRL1_ADC_CHAN_MASK,
> - .temp_data = SUN4I_GPADC_TEMP_DATA,
> + .temp_data = {SUN4I_GPADC_TEMP_DATA, 0, 0, 0},
> .sample_start = sun4i_gpadc_sample_start,
> .sample_end = sun4i_gpadc_sample_end,
> + .sensor_count = 1,
If the solution above is not desirable/possible, could we use something
like:
unsigned int sun4i_temp_data[] = {SUN4I_GPADC_TEMP_DATA,};
static const struct gpadc_data sun4i_gpadc_data = {
.temp_data = &sun4i_temp_data,
.sensor_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sun4i_temp_data),
};
That avoids 1) inconsistencies between the array size and the array
itself, 2) does not require to pad the array with zeroes.
[...]
> @@ -745,9 +752,12 @@ static int sun4i_gpadc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THERMAL_OF)) {
> - info->tzd = thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(info->sensor_device,
> - 0, info,
> - &sun4i_ts_tz_ops);
> + for (i = 0; i < info->data->sensor_count; i++) {
> + info->sensor_id = i;
> + info->tzd = thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(
> + info->sensor_device,
> + i, info, &sun4i_ts_tz_ops);
> + }
As Maxime said, this does not work.
One way would be to have a new structure being:
struct sun4i_sensor_info {
struct sun4i_gpadc_iio *info;
unsigned int sensor_id;
};
Or since we only use the iio_dev within the sun4i_gpadc_iio in the
.get_temp function, we may replace info by struct iio_dev *indio_dev
above.
Quentin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
