On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 16:42:33 +0000 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:13:59 +0100 > Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 21:36 +0100, Angelo Dureghello wrote: > > > From: Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Add backend support for setting and getting the interface type > > > in use. > > > > > > Link: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20241129153546.63584-1-antoniu.miclaus@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m6d86939078d780512824f1540145aade38b0990b > > > Signed-off-by: Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Co-developed-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > This patch has been picked up from the Antoniu patchset > > > still not accepted, and extended with the interface setter, > > > fixing also namespace names to be between quotation marks. > > > --- > > > drivers/iio/industrialio-backend.c | 42 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > include/linux/iio/backend.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-backend.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio- > > > backend.c > > > index 363281272035..6edc3e685f6a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-backend.c > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-backend.c > > > @@ -636,6 +636,48 @@ ssize_t iio_backend_ext_info_set(struct iio_dev > > > *indio_dev, uintptr_t private, > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(iio_backend_ext_info_set, "IIO_BACKEND"); > > > > > > +/** > > > + * iio_backend_interface_type_get - get the interface type used. > > > + * @back: Backend device > > > + * @type: Interface type > > > + * > > > + * RETURNS: > > > + * 0 on success, negative error number on failure. > > > + */ > > > +int iio_backend_interface_type_get(struct iio_backend *back, > > > + enum iio_backend_interface_type *type) > > > +{ > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + ret = iio_backend_op_call(back, interface_type_get, type); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + > > > + if (*type >= IIO_BACKEND_INTERFACE_MAX) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(iio_backend_interface_type_get, "IIO_BACKEND"); > > > + > > > +/** > > > + * iio_backend_interface_type_set - set the interface type used. > > > + * @back: Backend device > > > + * @type: Interface type > > > + * > > > + * RETURNS: > > > + * 0 on success, negative error number on failure. > > > + */ > > > +int iio_backend_interface_type_set(struct iio_backend *back, > > > + enum iio_backend_interface_type type) > > > +{ > > > + if (type >= IIO_BACKEND_INTERFACE_MAX) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + return iio_backend_op_call(back, interface_type_set, type); > > > +} > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(iio_backend_interface_type_set, "IIO_BACKEND"); > > > + > > > /** > > > * iio_backend_extend_chan_spec - Extend an IIO channel > > > * @back: Backend device > > > diff --git a/include/linux/iio/backend.h b/include/linux/iio/backend.h > > > index 10be00f3b120..2b7221099d8c 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/iio/backend.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/iio/backend.h > > > @@ -70,6 +70,15 @@ enum iio_backend_sample_trigger { > > > IIO_BACKEND_SAMPLE_TRIGGER_MAX > > > }; > > > > > > +enum iio_backend_interface_type { > > > + IIO_BACKEND_INTERFACE_SERIAL_LVDS, > > > + IIO_BACKEND_INTERFACE_SERIAL_CMOS, > > > > The above are apparently not used in the next patch so I would not add them now. > > > + IIO_BACKEND_INTERFACE_SERIAL_SPI, > > > + IIO_BACKEND_INTERFACE_SERIAL_DSPI, > > > + IIO_BACKEND_INTERFACE_SERIAL_QSPI, > > > > I'll throw my 2 cents but it would be nice to have more feedback on this. I'm > > not completely sure about the xSPI stuff in here. We treated the QSPI as a bus > > both for control and data in which we also add child devices. And we've been > > adding specific bus operations/configurations through the 'struct > > ad3552r_hs_platform_data' interface. So, I'm wondering if this should also not > > be set through that interface? > > Maybe - kind of hard to tell until we actually have code. > I'd go for kicking them into the long grass for now if they aren't used and > just dropping them from this patch. If we ever need them,easy to bring back > and then we should have a justification for why! oops. Misread. Obviously Nuno was saying the ones above aren't used, not the SPI ones... I don't feel strongly either way on setting these via this generic interface, or via the other path. Jonathan > > J > > > > > > LVDS/CMOS still looks slightly different to me... > > > > - Nuno Sá > > > > > > > >
