On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 05:28:04PM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote:
> This patch adds the accelerometer axis data to the IIO subsystem.
>
> Currently reporting the X, Y and Z values, as no other data can be
> queried given the fact that the accelerometer chip itself is hidden
> behind the Toshiba proprietary interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Azael Avalos <coproscefalo@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
> index 01e12d2..7949929 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> #include <linux/miscdevice.h>
> #include <linux/rfkill.h>
> +#include <linux/iio/iio.h>
> #include <linux/toshiba.h>
> #include <acpi/video.h>
>
> @@ -134,6 +135,7 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> /* Field definitions */
> #define HCI_ACCEL_MASK 0x7fff
> +#define HCI_ACCEL_DIRECTION_MASK 0x8000
> #define HCI_HOTKEY_DISABLE 0x0b
> #define HCI_HOTKEY_ENABLE 0x09
> #define HCI_HOTKEY_SPECIAL_FUNCTIONS 0x10
> @@ -178,6 +180,7 @@ struct toshiba_acpi_dev {
> struct led_classdev eco_led;
> struct miscdevice miscdev;
> struct rfkill *wwan_rfk;
> + struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
>
> int force_fan;
> int last_key_event;
> @@ -2420,6 +2423,83 @@ static void toshiba_acpi_kbd_bl_work(struct work_struct *work)
> }
>
> /*
> + * IIO device
> + */
> +
> +enum toshiba_accel_chan {
> + AXIS_X,
> + AXIS_Y,
> + AXIS_Z
> +};
> +
> +static int toshiba_accel_get_axis(enum toshiba_accel_chan chan)
> +{
> + u32 xyval;
> + u32 zval;
u32 xyval, zval; please (not a big deal). We have plenty of both, and I've
changed my policy on this sometime last year to be more consistent with the rest
of the kernel, Especially where values are related and of the same type, they
should be declared on the same line.
> + int ret;
> +
> + xyval = zval = 0;
This assignment is unnecessary. The toshiba_accelerometer_get function either
populates both values without reading them or it returns an error. If the
latter, we exit immediately without reading the values.
> + ret = toshiba_accelerometer_get(toshiba_acpi, &xyval, &zval);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + switch (chan) {
> + case AXIS_X:
> + return xyval & HCI_ACCEL_DIRECTION_MASK ?
> + -(xyval & HCI_ACCEL_MASK) : xyval & HCI_ACCEL_MASK;
> + case AXIS_Y:
> + return (xyval >> HCI_MISC_SHIFT) & HCI_ACCEL_DIRECTION_MASK ?
> + -((xyval >> HCI_MISC_SHIFT) & HCI_ACCEL_MASK) :
> + (xyval >> HCI_MISC_SHIFT) & HCI_ACCEL_MASK;
> + case AXIS_Z:
> + return zval & HCI_ACCEL_DIRECTION_MASK ?
> + -(zval & HCI_ACCEL_MASK) : zval & HCI_ACCEL_MASK;
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int toshiba_accel_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
The toshiba_accel* namespace is starting to get crowded. It would useful to have
a comment or section that was clearly the IIO interface versus the ACPI platform
interface.
> + struct iio_chan_spec const *chan,
> + int *val, int *val2, long mask)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + switch (mask) {
> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
> + ret = toshiba_accel_get_axis(chan->channel);
> + if (ret == -EIO || ret == -ENODEV)
> + return ret;
> +
> + *val = ret;
> +
> + return IIO_VAL_INT;
> + }
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +#define TOSHIBA_ACCEL_CHANNEL(axis, chan) { \
> + .type = IIO_ACCEL, \
> + .modified = 1, \
> + .channel = chan, \
> + .channel2 = IIO_MOD_##axis, \
> + .output = 1, \
> + .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW), \
> +}
> +
> +static const struct iio_chan_spec toshiba_accel_channels[] = {
> + TOSHIBA_ACCEL_CHANNEL(X, AXIS_X),
> + TOSHIBA_ACCEL_CHANNEL(Y, AXIS_Y),
> + TOSHIBA_ACCEL_CHANNEL(Z, AXIS_Z),
> +};
> +
> +static const struct iio_info toshiba_accel_info = {
> + .driver_module = THIS_MODULE,
> + .read_raw = &toshiba_accel_read_raw,
> +};
> +
> +/*
> * Misc device
> */
> static int toshiba_acpi_smm_bridge(SMMRegisters *regs)
> @@ -2904,6 +2984,11 @@ static int toshiba_acpi_remove(struct acpi_device *acpi_dev)
>
> remove_toshiba_proc_entries(dev);
>
> + if (dev->accelerometer_supported) {
I'd suggest:
if (dev->accelerometer_supported && dev->indio_dev) {
See below for rationale...
> + iio_device_unregister(dev->indio_dev);
> + iio_device_free(dev->indio_dev);
> + }
> +
> if (dev->sysfs_created)
> sysfs_remove_group(&dev->acpi_dev->dev.kobj,
> &toshiba_attr_group);
> @@ -3051,6 +3136,28 @@ static int toshiba_acpi_add(struct acpi_device *acpi_dev)
> dev->touchpad_supported = !ret;
>
> toshiba_accelerometer_available(dev);
> + if (dev->accelerometer_supported) {
> + dev->indio_dev = iio_device_alloc(sizeof(*dev));
> + if (!dev->indio_dev)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + pr_info("Registering Toshiba accelerometer iio device\n");
> +
> + dev->indio_dev->info = &toshiba_accel_info;
> + dev->indio_dev->name = "Toshiba accelerometer";
> + dev->indio_dev->dev.parent = &acpi_dev->dev;
> + dev->indio_dev->modes = INDIO_DIRECT_MODE;
> + dev->indio_dev->channels = toshiba_accel_channels;
> + dev->indio_dev->num_channels =
> + ARRAY_SIZE(toshiba_accel_channels);
> +
> + ret = iio_device_register(dev->indio_dev);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + pr_err("Unable to register iio device\n");
> + iio_device_free(dev->indio_dev);
> + return ret;
> + }
Is this failure adequate cause to abort loading the entire driver? It seems to
me it would be preferable to be robust against subsystem failure, such that if
something goes wrong with iio, the many other features of this driver can
continue to work.
Perhaps print the error, but don't abort? Thoughts?
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
