On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:08 AM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-03-11 at 16:26 -0500, David Lechner wrote:
...
> > /*
> > * ad7944_4wire_mode_conversion - Perform a 4-wire mode conversion and acquisition
> > * @adc: The ADC device structure
> > @@ -167,9 +246,22 @@ static int ad7944_single_conversion(struct ad7944_adc *adc,
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > - ret = ad7944_4wire_mode_conversion(adc, chan);
> > - if (ret)
> > - return ret;
> > + switch (adc->spi_mode) {
> > + case AD7944_SPI_MODE_DEFAULT:
> > + ret = ad7944_4wire_mode_conversion(adc, chan);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + break;
> > + case AD7944_SPI_MODE_SINGLE:
> > + ret = ad7944_3wire_cs_mode_conversion(adc, chan);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + break;
> > + case AD7944_SPI_MODE_CHAIN:
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> This mode is not really supported for now and in theory we can't really have
> adc->spi_mode = AD7944_SPI_MODE_CHAIN, right? So, I would just make this the
> 'default' branch and not care about chain mode (implementing it when adding it).
The compiler was happy with this, but yeah, default: is probably safer.
...
> > + if (!adc->cnv && adc->spi_mode == AD7944_SPI_MODE_DEFAULT)
> > + return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, -EINVAL, "CNV GPIO is
> > required\n");
> > + else if (adc->cnv && adc->spi_mode != AD7944_SPI_MODE_DEFAULT)
> > + return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, -EINVAL,
> > + "CNV GPIO in single and chain mode is not
> > currently supported\n");
> > +
>
> Redundant else...
yup
>
> > adc->turbo = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "turbo", GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
> > if (IS_ERR(adc->turbo))
> > return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(adc->turbo),
> > @@ -369,6 +486,10 @@ static int ad7944_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> > return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL,
> > "cannot have both turbo-gpios and adi,always-turbo\n");
> >
> > + if (adc->spi_mode == AD7944_SPI_MODE_CHAIN && adc->always_turbo)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL,
> > + "cannot have both chain mode and always turbo\n");
> > +
>
>
> I'm fine in having this now but shouldn't we only have the above when we do support
> chain mode? A bit odd having it when we don't even allow chain mode.
>
Yeah, we could wait to add this. It seemed like something easy to
overlook though if we don't add chain mode right away, so I just went
ahead and added it now.
