On Tue, 2024-10-15 at 09:38 -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> On 10/15/24 1:37 AM, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 16:15 -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> > > On 10/14/24 5:08 AM, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> > > > From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Add High Speed ad3552r platform driver.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > +static int ad3552r_hs_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > > > + struct iio_chan_spec const *chan,
> > > > + int *val, int *val2, long mask)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct ad3552r_hs_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + switch (mask) {
> > > > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ: {
> > > > + int sclk;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = iio_backend_read_raw(st->back, chan, &sclk, 0,
> > > > + IIO_CHAN_INFO_FREQUENCY);
> > >
> > > FWIW, this still seems like an odd way to get the stream mode SCLK
> > > rate from the backend to me. How does the backend know that we want
> > > the stream mode clock rate and not some other frequency value?
> >
> > In this case the backend has a dedicated compatible so sky is the limit :). But
> > yeah,
> > I'm also not extremely happy with IIO_CHAN_INFO_FREQUENCY. But what do you have
> > in
> > mind? Using the sampling frequency INFO or a dedicated OP?
> >
>
> It think it would be most straightforward to have something
> like a iio_backend_get_data_stream_clock_rate() callback since
> that is what we are getting.
Hmmm, what about exporting an actual clock? Maybe it's overkill but from a
correctness point of view, seems what we should actually do :)
>
> Re: the other recent discussions about getting too many
> callbacks. Instead of a dedicated function like this, we
> could make a set of generic functions:
>
> iio_backend_{g,s}et_property_{s,u}(8, 16, 32, 64}()
>
Hmm interesting approach. I don't dislike it. Kind of a generic getter/setter thingy.
We could then still have optional inline helpers that would call the generic
functions with the proper enum value.
> that take an enum parameter for the property. This way,
> for each new property, we just have to add an enum member
> instead of creating a get/set callback pair.
>
> Unrelated to this particular case, but taking the idea even
> farther, we could also do the same with enable/disable
> functions. We talked before about cutting the number of
> callbacks in half by using a bool parameter instead of
> separate enable/disable callbacks. But we could cut it down
> even more by having an enum parameter for the thing we are
> enabling/disabling.
If we don't get too strict about types it could even fall into the above u8 category.
Instead of lot of new simple ops we just grow an enum.
- Nuno Sá
