On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 01:24:12PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2024 18:52:03 +0200
> Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > For BMP18x, BMP28x, BME280, BMP38x the reading of the pressure
> > value requires an update of the t_fine variable which happens
> > through reading the temperature value.
> >
> > So all the bmpxxx_read_press() functions of the above sensors
> > are internally calling the equivalent bmpxxx_read_temp() function
> > in order to update the t_fine value. By just looking at the code
> > this functionality is a bit hidden and is not easy to understand
> > why those channels are not independent.
> >
> > This commit tries to clear these things a bit by splitting the
> > bmpxxx_{read/compensate}_{temp/press/humid}() to the following:
> >
> > i. bmpxxx_read_{temp/press/humid}_adc(): read the raw value from
> > the sensor.
> >
> > ii. bmpxx_calc_t_fine(): calculate the t_fine variable.
> >
> > iii. bmpxxx_get_t_fine(): get the t_fine variable.
> >
> > iv. bmpxxx_compensate_{temp/press/humid}(): compensate the adc
> > values and return the calculated value.
> >
> > v. bmpxxx_read_{temp/press/humid}(): combine calls of the
> > aforementioned functions to return the requested value.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@xxxxxxxxx>
> A few minor things inline. Given I've picked up the 1st 4 patches,
> please base your v7 on top of those.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
> > ---
> > drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c | 361 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280.h | 6 -
> > 2 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 135 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c b/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c
> > index dd5c526dacbd..a864f8db8e24 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c
> > @@ -288,13 +288,35 @@ static int bme280_read_calib(struct bmp280_data *data)
> > *
> > * Taken from BME280 datasheet, Section 4.2.3, "Compensation formula".
> > */
>
> Seems this comment should probably follow the maths which has moved.
>
> > +static int bme280_read_humid_adc(struct bmp280_data *data, u16 *adc_humidity)
> > +{
> > + u16 value_humidity;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, BME280_REG_HUMIDITY_MSB,
> > + &data->be16, sizeof(data->be16));
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(data->dev, "failed to read humidity\n");
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + value_humidity = be16_to_cpu(data->be16);
> > + if (value_humidity == BMP280_HUMIDITY_SKIPPED) {
> > + dev_err(data->dev, "reading humidity skipped\n");
> > + return -EIO;
> > + }
> > + *adc_humidity = value_humidity;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> ...
> > @@ -313,8 +335,29 @@ static u32 bme280_compensate_humidity(struct bmp280_data *data,
> > *
> > * Taken from datasheet, Section 3.11.3, "Compensation formula".
> > */
> Is this comment still relevant here? Seems it should probably move to follow
> that maths.
>
> > -static s32 bmp280_compensate_temp(struct bmp280_data *data,
> > - u32 adc_temp)
> > +static int bmp280_read_temp_adc(struct bmp280_data *data, u32 *adc_temp)
> > +{
>
> >
> > static int bmp380_read_press(struct bmp280_data *data, int *val, int *val2)
> > {
> > - u32 adc_press, comp_press;
> > + u32 adc_press, comp_press, t_fine;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - /* Read and compensate for temperature so we get a reading of t_fine */
> > - ret = bmp380_read_temp(data, NULL, NULL);
> > + ret = bmp380_get_t_fine(data, &t_fine);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > - ret = regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, BMP380_REG_PRESS_XLSB,
> > - data->buf, sizeof(data->buf));
> > - if (ret) {
> > - dev_err(data->dev, "failed to read pressure\n");
> > + ret = bmp380_read_press_adc(data, &adc_press);
> > + if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > - }
> >
> > - adc_press = get_unaligned_le24(data->buf);
> > - if (adc_press == BMP380_PRESS_SKIPPED) {
> > - dev_err(data->dev, "reading pressure skipped\n");
> > - return -EIO;
> > - }
> > - comp_press = bmp380_compensate_press(data, adc_press);
> > + comp_press = bmp380_compensate_press(data, adc_press, t_fine);
> >
> > + /* IIO units are in kPa */
>
> Probably worth keeping the reference to what the unit of the
> datasheet maths is around.
>
> > *val = comp_press;
> > - /* Compensated pressure is in cPa (centipascals) */
> > *val2 = 100000;
> >
> > return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
> > @@ -1825,7 +1916,7 @@ static int bmp180_wait_for_eoc(struct bmp280_data *data, u8 ctrl_meas)
> > return 0;
> > }
>
>
> > -static u32 bmp180_compensate_press(struct bmp280_data *data, u32 adc_press)
> > +static u32 bmp180_compensate_press(struct bmp280_data *data, u32 adc_press,
> > + s32 t_fine)
> > {
> > struct bmp180_calib *calib = &data->calib.bmp180;
> > s32 oss = data->oversampling_press;
> > @@ -1965,7 +2068,7 @@ static u32 bmp180_compensate_press(struct bmp280_data *data, u32 adc_press)
> > s32 b3, b6;
> > u32 b4, b7;
> >
> > - b6 = data->t_fine - 4000;
> > + b6 = t_fine - 4000;
> > x1 = (calib->B2 * (b6 * b6 >> 12)) >> 11;
> > x2 = calib->AC2 * b6 >> 11;
> > x3 = x1 + x2;
> > @@ -1974,7 +2077,7 @@ static u32 bmp180_compensate_press(struct bmp280_data *data, u32 adc_press)
> > x2 = (calib->B1 * ((b6 * b6) >> 12)) >> 16;
> > x3 = (x1 + x2 + 2) >> 2;
> > b4 = calib->AC4 * (u32)(x3 + 32768) >> 15;
> > - b7 = (adc_press - b3) * (50000 >> oss);
> > + b7 = (((u32)adc_press) - b3) * (50000 >> oss);
>
> Casting from u32 to u32?
>
> > if (b7 < 0x80000000)
> > p = (b7 * 2) / b4;
> > else
> > @@ -1990,19 +2093,19 @@ static u32 bmp180_compensate_press(struct bmp280_data *data, u32 adc_press)
> > static int bmp180_read_press(struct bmp280_data *data, int *val, int *val2)
>
> > + /* IIO units are in kPa */
>
> I think this is an unrelated improvement as original code doesn't have such a comment.
> So shouldn't really be in this patch. If you want to keep it here rather than pushing it
> into an additional patch, mention it in the commit message. "additional comments on base
> units added for consistency" or something like that.
> > *val = comp_press;
> > *val2 = 1000;
Hi Jonathan!
Thank you very much once again for the amazing feedback!
As it looks like, I changed the code but I forgot to move the
comments accordingly. Thank you very much for pointing this out.
The extra comments are indeed not necessary, they don't add some
specific value so I can drop them.
Cheers,
Vasilis
