On Tue, 2024-10-22 at 18:40 +0200, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> Hi Nuno,
>
> On 22.10.2024 14:28, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-10-21 at 14:40 +0200, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> > > From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Add High Speed ad3552r platform driver.
> > >
> > > The ad3552r DAC is controlled by a custom (fpga-based) DAC IP
> > > through the current AXI backend, or similar alternative IIO backend.
> > >
> > > Compared to the existing driver (ad3552r.c), that is a simple SPI
> > > driver, this driver is coupled with a DAC IIO backend that finally
> > > controls the ad3552r by a fpga-based "QSPI+DDR" interface, to reach
> > > maximum transfer rate of 33MUPS using dma stream capabilities.
> > >
> > > All commands involving QSPI bus read/write are delegated to the backend
> > > through the provided APIs for bus read/write.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iio/dac/Kconfig | 14 ++
> > > drivers/iio/dac/Makefile | 1 +
> > > drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r-hs.c | 547
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r-hs.h | 18 ++
> > > drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.h | 4 +
> > > 5 files changed, 584 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/Kconfig b/drivers/iio/dac/Kconfig
> > > index fa091995d002..fc11698e88f2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/dac/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/Kconfig
> > > @@ -6,6 +6,20 @@
> > >
> > > menu "Digital to analog converters"
> > >
> > > +config AD3552R_HS
> > > + tristate "Analog Devices AD3552R DAC High Speed driver"
> > > + select ADI_AXI_DAC
> > > + help
> > > + Say yes here to build support for Analog Devices AD3552R
> > > + Digital to Analog Converter High Speed driver.
> > > +
> > > + The driver requires the assistance of an IP core to operate,
> > > + since data is streamed into target device via DMA, sent over a
> > > + QSPI + DDR (Double Data Rate) bus.
> > > +
> > > + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the
> > > + module will be called ad3552r-hs.
> > > +
> > > config AD3552R
> > > tristate "Analog Devices AD3552R DAC driver"
> > > depends on SPI_MASTER
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/Makefile b/drivers/iio/dac/Makefile
> > > index c92de0366238..d92e08ca93ca 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/dac/Makefile
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/Makefile
> > > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> > > #
> > >
> > > # When adding new entries keep the list in alphabetical order
> > > +obj-$(CONFIG_AD3552R_HS) += ad3552r-hs.o ad3552r-common.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_AD3552R) += ad3552r.o ad3552r-common.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_AD5360) += ad5360.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_AD5380) += ad5380.o
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r-hs.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r-hs.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..27bdc35fdc29
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r-hs.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,547 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > > +/*
> > > + * Analog Devices AD3552R
> > > + * Digital to Analog converter driver, High Speed version
> > > + *
> > > + * Copyright 2024 Analog Devices Inc.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> > > +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> > > +#include <linux/iio/backend.h>
> > > +#include <linux/iio/buffer.h>
> > > +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
> > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > +#include <linux/property.h>
> > > +#include <linux/units.h>
> > > +
> > > +#include "ad3552r.h"
> > > +#include "ad3552r-hs.h"
> > > +
> > > +struct ad3552r_hs_state {
> > > + const struct ad3552r_model_data *model_data;
> > > + struct gpio_desc *reset_gpio;
> > > + struct device *dev;
> > > + struct iio_backend *back;
> > > + bool single_channel;
> > > + struct ad3552r_ch_data ch_data[AD3552R_MAX_CH];
> > > + struct ad3552r_hs_platform_data *data;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static int ad3552r_qspi_update_reg_bits(struct ad3552r_hs_state *st,
> > > + u32 reg, u32 mask, u32 val,
> > > + size_t xfer_size)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 rval;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_read(st->back, reg, &rval, xfer_size);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + rval = (rval & ~mask) | val;
> > > +
> > > + return st->data->bus_reg_write(st->back, reg, rval, xfer_size);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +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;
> > > + int ch = chan->channel;
> > > +
> > > + switch (mask) {
> > > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ: {
> > > + int sclk;
> > > +
> > > + ret = iio_backend_read_raw(st->back, chan, &sclk, 0,
> > > + IIO_CHAN_INFO_FREQUENCY);
> > > + if (ret != IIO_VAL_INT)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> >
> > I just saw you had some questions on v6 that everyone failed to see. See my
> > reply to David here:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/61cf3072af74a8b2951c948ddc2383ba1e55954d.camel@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > It should be easy and it's something that makes sense (at least to me :))
> >
>
> I understood that we would improve things later in case.
>
> Could we maybe stay with IIO_CHAN_INFO_FREQUENCY ? It doesn't seems to me
> so out of scope. Sorry but i am trying to finalize someway this job,
> so i am trying to conatain changes now at v7, if code is not really
> totally wrong.
I think you're trying to rush in the series. I can understand your frustration but
believe me that v7 (or v8) is not so bad :).
David already raised concerns about using IIO_CHAN_INFO_FREQUENCY. I'm also not a fan
of it and gave you another option that should be trivial and makes sense (given that
bus_read and write are already being done through the platform_data interface). So
no, I don't think we're going to accept "is not really totally wrong.". IOW, We want
it to be totally right - if such a thing exists :).
>
> > > + /*
> > > + * Using 4 lanes (QSPI), then using 2 as DDR mode is
> > > + * considered always on (considering buffering mode always).
> > > + */
> > > + *val = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(sclk * 4 * 2,
> > > + chan->scan_type.realbits);
> > > +
> > > + return IIO_VAL_INT;
> > > + }
> > > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_read(st->back,
> > > + AD3552R_REG_ADDR_CH_DAC_16B(chan->channel),
> > > + val, 2);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + return IIO_VAL_INT;
> > > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
> > > + *val = st->ch_data[ch].scale_int;
> > > + *val2 = st->ch_data[ch].scale_dec;
> > > + return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;
> > > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET:
> > > + *val = st->ch_data[ch].offset_int;
> > > + *val2 = st->ch_data[ch].offset_dec;
> > > + return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;
> > > + default:
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int ad3552r_hs_write_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);
> > > +
> > > + switch (mask) {
> > > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
> > > + iio_device_claim_direct_scoped(return -EBUSY, indio_dev) {
> > > + return st->data->bus_reg_write(st->back,
> > > + AD3552R_REG_ADDR_CH_DAC_16B(chan-
> > > > channel),
> > > + val, 2);
> > > + }
> >
> > Maybe we'll get the new stuff in time for this :)
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > +
> > > +static int ad3552r_hs_reset(struct ad3552r_hs_state *st)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Using inverted "active-high" logic here, since ad3552r classic-spi
> > > + * fdt node (and driver) is using the same logic.
> > > + */
> > > +
> >
> > I don't understand this. This is a new device with a different compatible. Why
> > keeping the wrong logic? AFAICT, there's nothing in the bindings about the pin
> > polarity.
> >
>
> ad3552r.c uses same compatible (adi,ad3552r), and in the code it implements
> this same inverted logic. So i thought to use the same logic.
> I can anyway change to the correct active-low logic for this driver,
> but would honestly not enter in fixing old code now at v7.
> Happy to do such fix on ad3552r.c later on.
Ok, bad example from me with the compatible. The point is this is a different device.
It's a platform device while the other one is a spi device. So why doing it wrong in
here? Not saying to change the other device logic, just not doing it deliberately
wrong in a new device.
For the old device, we can't likely change it as we could break current users who
just adapted their DTs to conform to the driver logic.
>
> > > + st->reset_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(st->dev,
> > > + "reset", GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(st->reset_gpio))
> > > + return PTR_ERR(st->reset_gpio);
> > > +
> > > + if (st->reset_gpio) {
> > > + fsleep(10);
> > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(st->reset_gpio, 1);
> > > + } else {
> > > + ret = ad3552r_qspi_update_reg_bits(st,
> > > + AD3552R_REG_ADDR_INTERFACE_CONFIG_A,
> > > + AD3552R_MASK_SOFTWARE_RESET,
> > > + AD3552R_MASK_SOFTWARE_RESET, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > + msleep(100);
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int ad3552r_hs_scratch_pad_test(struct ad3552r_hs_state *st)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret, val;
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_write(st->back, AD3552R_REG_ADDR_SCRATCH_PAD,
> > > + AD3552R_SCRATCH_PAD_TEST_VAL1, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_read(st->back, AD3552R_REG_ADDR_SCRATCH_PAD,
> > > + &val, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (val != AD3552R_SCRATCH_PAD_TEST_VAL1)
> > > + return dev_err_probe(st->dev, -EIO,
> > > + "SCRATCH_PAD_TEST mismatch. Expected 0x%x, Read
> > > 0x%x\n",
> > > + AD3552R_SCRATCH_PAD_TEST_VAL1, val);
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_write(st->back, AD3552R_REG_ADDR_SCRATCH_PAD,
> > > + AD3552R_SCRATCH_PAD_TEST_VAL2, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_read(st->back, AD3552R_REG_ADDR_SCRATCH_PAD,
> > > + &val, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (val != AD3552R_SCRATCH_PAD_TEST_VAL2)
> > > + return dev_err_probe(st->dev, -EIO,
> > > + "SCRATCH_PAD_TEST mismatch. Expected 0x%x, Read
> > > 0x%x\n",
> > > + AD3552R_SCRATCH_PAD_TEST_VAL2, val);
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int ad3552r_hs_setup_custom_gain(struct ad3552r_hs_state *st,
> > > + int ch, u16 gain, u16 offset)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_write(st->back,
> > > AD3552R_REG_ADDR_CH_OFFSET(ch),
> > > + offset, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return dev_err_probe(st->dev, ret, "Error writing
> > > register\n");
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_write(st->back, AD3552R_REG_ADDR_CH_GAIN(ch),
> > > + gain, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return dev_err_probe(st->dev, ret, "Error writing
> > > register\n");
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> >
> > nit: Not a big fan of these logs on read/write registers functions... Also seems
> > that you're not being consistent (either you have them or not). FWIW, I would
> > simplify and drop them. That would allow to do
> >
> > return st->data->bus_reg_write(st->back, AD3552R_REG_ADDR_CH_GAIN(ch), gain, 1);
> >
>
> Used dev_err_probe on quite all probe functions.
> I don't see nothing really wrong on this codem except maybe a more meaningful
> message.
No, you're not being consistent. You have another calls (example: st->data-
>bus_reg_rea()) where no log is being given.
>
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int ad3552r_hs_setup(struct ad3552r_hs_state *st)
> > > +{
> > > + s16 goffs;
> > > + u16 id;
> > > + u16 gain = 0, offset = 0;
> > > + u32 ch, val, range;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = ad3552r_hs_reset(st);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = iio_backend_ddr_disable(st->back);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = ad3552r_hs_scratch_pad_test(st);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_read(st->back, AD3552R_REG_ADDR_PRODUCT_ID_L,
> > > + &val, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + id = val;
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_read(st->back, AD3552R_REG_ADDR_PRODUCT_ID_H,
> > > + &val, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + id |= val << 8;
> > > + if (id != st->model_data->chip_id)
> > > + dev_info(st->dev, "Chip ID error. Expected 0x%x, Read
> > > 0x%x\n",
> > > + AD3552R_ID, id);
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_write(st->back,
> > > + AD3552R_REG_ADDR_SH_REFERENCE_CONFIG,
> > > + 0, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = st->data->bus_reg_write(st->back,
> > > + AD3552R_REG_ADDR_TRANSFER_REGISTER,
> > > + FIELD_PREP(AD3552R_MASK_MULTI_IO_MODE,
> > > + AD3552R_QUAD_SPI) |
> > > + AD3552R_MASK_STREAM_LENGTH_KEEP_VALUE, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = iio_backend_data_source_set(st->back, 0, IIO_BACKEND_EXTERNAL);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = iio_backend_data_source_set(st->back, 1, IIO_BACKEND_EXTERNAL);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = ad3552r_get_ref_voltage(st->dev, &val);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + val = ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = ad3552r_qspi_update_reg_bits(st,
> > > + AD3552R_REG_ADDR_SH_REFERENCE_CONFIG,
> > > + AD3552R_MASK_REFERENCE_VOLTAGE_SEL,
> > > + val, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = ad3552r_get_drive_strength(st->dev, &val);
> > > + if (!ret) {
> > > + ret = ad3552r_qspi_update_reg_bits(st,
> > > + AD3552R_REG_ADDR_INTERFACE_CONFIG_D,
> > > + AD3552R_MASK_SDO_DRIVE_STRENGTH,
> > > + val, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + device_for_each_child_node_scoped(st->dev, child) {
> > > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &ch);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return dev_err_probe(st->dev, ret,
> > > + "reg property missing\n");
> > > +
> > > + ret = ad3552r_get_output_range(st->dev, st->model_data,
> > > child,
> > > + &range);
> > > + if (!ret) {
> > > + st->ch_data[ch].range = range;
> > > +
> > > + ret = ad3552r_hs_set_output_range(st, ch, range);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + } else if (ret == -ENOENT) {
> > > + ret = ad3552r_get_custom_gain(st->dev, child,
> > > + &st->ch_data[ch].p,
> > > + &st->ch_data[ch].n,
> > > + &st->ch_data[ch].rfb,
> > > + &st-
> > > > ch_data[ch].gain_offset);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + gain = ad3552r_calc_custom_gain(st->ch_data[ch].p,
> > > + st->ch_data[ch].n,
> > > + st->ch_data[ch].gain_offset);
> > > + offset = abs(goffs);
> > > +
> > > + st->ch_data[ch].range_override = 1;
> > > +
> > > + ret = ad3552r_hs_setup_custom_gain(st, ch, gain,
> > > + offset);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + } else {
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> >
> > Just personal preference... I think this would be neater:
> > if (ret && ret != ENOENT)
> > return ret;
> > if (ret == -ENOENT) {
> > ...
> > } else {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > Advantage is that it also handles errors first (which is the typical pattern)
>
> I tested this code, would not change possibly now at this stage,
> unless another version should be sent.
Not sure if we'll need another but personally I cannot ack this one as it stands...
sorry.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + ad3552r_calc_gain_and_offset(&st->ch_data[ch], st-
> > > > model_data);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops ad3552r_hs_buffer_setup_ops = {
> > > + .postenable = ad3552r_hs_buffer_postenable,
> > > + .predisable = ad3552r_hs_buffer_predisable,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +#define AD3552R_CHANNEL(ch) { \
> > > + .type = IIO_VOLTAGE, \
> > > + .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | \
> > > + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ) | \
> > > + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) | \
> > > + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET), \
> > > + .output = 1, \
> > > + .indexed = 1, \
> > > + .channel = (ch), \
> > > + .scan_index = (ch), \
> > > + .scan_type = { \
> > > + .sign = 'u', \
> > > + .realbits = 16, \
> > > + .storagebits = 16, \
> > > + .endianness = IIO_BE, \
> > > + } \
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static const struct iio_chan_spec ad3552r_hs_channels[] = {
> > > + AD3552R_CHANNEL(0),
> > > + AD3552R_CHANNEL(1),
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct iio_info ad3552r_hs_info = {
> > > + .read_raw = &ad3552r_hs_read_raw,
> > > + .write_raw = &ad3552r_hs_write_raw,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static int ad3552r_hs_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ad3552r_hs_state *st;
> > > + struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*st));
> > > + if (!indio_dev)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > > + st->dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > +
> > > + st->data = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> >
> > dev_get_platdata()
> >
>
> pdev->dev.platform_data seems correct to me, used in a lot of places
> in the driver framework. Can we stay with it ?
>
It is correct but if we an helper, why not using it? It may be used in a lot of
places just because the helper was added afterwards...
- Nuno Sá
>
