On 9/6/24 12:34 AM, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 2:30 AM David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 9/5/24 3:24 AM, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: >>> -static int ad7606_read_samples(struct ad7606_state *st) >>> +static int ad7606_read_samples(struct ad7606_state *st, bool sign_extend_samples) >>> { >>> + unsigned int storagebits = st->chip_info->channels[1].scan_type.storagebits; >> >> Why [1]? Sure, they are all the same, but [0] would seem less arbitrary. > > [0] is the timestamp channel. Oh, that's weird. First channel but last scan index!? >> >>> + if (ret) >>> + return ret; >>> + >>> + if (storagebits == 16 || !sign_extend_samples) >>> + return 0; >>> + >>> + /* For 18 bit samples, we need to sign-extend samples to 32 bits */ >>> + for (i = 0; i < num; i++) >>> + data32[i] = sign_extend32(data32[i], 17);> + >>> + return 0; >>> } >>> >>> static irqreturn_t ad7606_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p) >>> @@ -124,11 +176,11 @@ static irqreturn_t ad7606_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p) >>> >>> guard(mutex)(&st->lock); >>> >>> - ret = ad7606_read_samples(st); >>> + ret = ad7606_read_samples(st, true); >> >> Shouldn't the sign_extend parameter depend on if the data is unipolar or bipolar? > > [c1] > Sign-extension is only needed for 18-bit samples. > 16-bit samples are already properly sign(ed), but to 16-bits. > > It's a slight performance improvement, that may look quirky here. > The idea here, is that for ad7606_scan_direct() we only need to > sign-extend 1 sample of the 8 samples we get. > And we need to sign-extend it to 32 bits regardless of it being 16-bit > or 18-bit. > > In ad7606_trigger_handler(), the 16-bit samples were pushed as-is. > Which means that we need to sign-extend the samples at least for > 18-bits (as it is a new part) > The question now becomes if we should sign-extend to 32-bits, 16-bit > samples in ad7606_trigger_handler(), as that may break some ABI. > Sign extension should not be needed at all for buffered reads (that is what scan_type is for). So sign extension should only be needed for the direct read when returning a raw value via sysfs (raw read).