On 11/25, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:53:47 -0200
> Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Previously, there was an implicit creation of a kfifo which was replaced
> > by a call to triggered_buffer_setup, which is already implemented in iio
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt1@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> I'm a little surprised that this would work without screaming a lot as
> it will register an interrupt with no handlers. Do you have this
> device to test? It's rapidly heading in the direction of too complex
> a driver to fix without test hardware. Also, semantically this change
> is not sensible as it implies an operating mode which the driver
> is not using.
>
Thanks for reviewing the patch. I'm not expert at electronics so I'm
still studying the datasheet to understand how the ad5933 works.
> There are fundamental questions about how we handle an autotriggered
> sweep that need answering before this driver can move forwards.
> It needs some concept of a higher level trigger rather than a per
> sample one like we typically use in IIO.
>
>From what I've read so far it seems that we would need to have two
operation modes: one for the frequency sweep (that need to be
discussed yet) and another for the receive stage (in which ad5933 would
be continuously requested for data through I2C). So my first approach
would be to build up an abstract trigger that would allow switching
between these two operation modes. What do you think about that?
> The main focus in the short term should be around defining that ABI
> as it may fundamentally change the structure of the driver.
> If you want to take this on (and it'll be a big job I think!) then
> it may be possible to source some hardware to support that effort.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
As a member of the FLOSS group at Universidade de São Paulo I have the
hardware to test the driver though I didn't figure out all the steps to
do it yet. I intend to continue development on this driver so I'm really
thankful for all advise given.
Thanks,
Marcelo
> > ---
> > .../staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/Kconfig | 2 +-
> > .../staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/ad5933.c | 25 ++++---------------
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/Kconfig b/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/Kconfig
> > index dd97b6bb3fd0..d0af5aa55dc0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/Kconfig
> > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ config AD5933
> > tristate "Analog Devices AD5933, AD5934 driver"
> > depends on I2C
> > select IIO_BUFFER
> > - select IIO_KFIFO_BUF
> > + select IIO_TRIGGERED_BUFFER
> > help
> > Say yes here to build support for Analog Devices Impedance Converter,
> > Network Analyzer, AD5933/4, provides direct access via sysfs.
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/ad5933.c b/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/ad5933.c
> > index f9bcb8310e21..edb8b540bbf1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/ad5933.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/impedance-analyzer/ad5933.c
> > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
> > #include <linux/iio/iio.h>
> > #include <linux/iio/sysfs.h>
> > #include <linux/iio/buffer.h>
> > -#include <linux/iio/kfifo_buf.h>
> > +#include <linux/iio/triggered_buffer.h>
> >
> > /* AD5933/AD5934 Registers */
> > #define AD5933_REG_CONTROL_HB 0x80 /* R/W, 1 byte */
> > @@ -615,22 +615,6 @@ static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops ad5933_ring_setup_ops = {
> > .postdisable = ad5933_ring_postdisable,
> > };
> >
> > -static int ad5933_register_ring_funcs_and_init(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > -{
> > - struct iio_buffer *buffer;
> > -
> > - buffer = iio_kfifo_allocate();
> > - if (!buffer)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > -
> > - iio_device_attach_buffer(indio_dev, buffer);
> > -
> > - /* Ring buffer functions - here trigger setup related */
> > - indio_dev->setup_ops = &ad5933_ring_setup_ops;
> > -
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > static void ad5933_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > {
> > struct ad5933_state *st = container_of(work,
> > @@ -744,7 +728,8 @@ static int ad5933_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > indio_dev->channels = ad5933_channels;
> > indio_dev->num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(ad5933_channels);
> >
> > - ret = ad5933_register_ring_funcs_and_init(indio_dev);
> > + ret = iio_triggered_buffer_setup(indio_dev, NULL, NULL,
> > + &ad5933_ring_setup_ops);
>
> The absence of either of the interrupt related callbacks made me
> wonder what is going on here. The upshot is that this device
> isn't operating in a triggered buffer style at all so we really
> shouldn't be using that infrastructure - even if it's convenient.
>
> It'll allocate an interrupt with neither a top half nor a thread
> function. I'm not sure what the core will do about that but it
> seems unlikely to be happy about it!
>
The reason for not using triggered_buffer would be because I2C of
communication is always started by the master device so the ad5933 would
only wait for being requested for data. It wouldn't be capable of using
I2C to call for master device nor it has any interrupt pin to do that.
Is that right?
>
> > if (ret)
> > goto error_disable_reg;
> >
> > @@ -759,7 +744,7 @@ static int ad5933_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > return 0;
> >
> > error_unreg_ring:
> > - iio_kfifo_free(indio_dev->buffer);
> > + iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(indio_dev);
> > error_disable_reg:
> > regulator_disable(st->reg);
> >
> > @@ -772,7 +757,7 @@ static int ad5933_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> > struct ad5933_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >
> > iio_device_unregister(indio_dev);
> > - iio_kfifo_free(indio_dev->buffer);
> > + iio_triggered_buffer_cleanup(indio_dev);
> > regulator_disable(st->reg);
> >
> > return 0;
>
