Re: [PATCH 4/4] iio: adc: stm32-dfsdm: add scale and offset support

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 18:44:30 +0200
Olivier MOYSAN <olivier.moysan@foss.st.com> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> >>>>
> >>>> If 'backend' option turns out to be the most appropriated to match DFSDM
> >>>> constraints, I can prepare some patches to support it.
> >>>> Would you have some guidelines or requirements for the implementation of
> >>>> such feature, in this case ?  
> >>>
> >>> Closest example is that rcar-gyroadc but in this case we'd want to define
> >>> something standard to support the modulators so that if we have other filters
> >>> in future we can reuse them.
> >>>
> >>> That means implementing them as child devices of the filter - probably put
> >>> the on the IIO bus, but as different device type.  Take a look at how
> >>> triggers are done in industrialio-trigger.c
> >>> You need struct device_type sd_modulator
> >>> and a suitable device struct (burred in an iio_sd_modulator struct probably).
> >>>
> >>> Also needed would be a bunch of standard callbacks to allow you to query things
> >>> like scaling.   Keep that interface simple. Until we have a lot of modulator
> >>> drivers it will be hard to know exactly what is needed.  Also whilst we don't
> >>> have many it is easy to modify the interface.
> >>>
> >>> Then have your filter driver walk it's own dt children and instantiate
> >>> appropriate new elements and register them on the iio_bus.  They will have
> >>> the filter as their parent.
> >>>
> >>> There are various examples of this sort of thing in tree.
> >>> If you want a good one, drivers/cxl does a lot of this sort magic to manage
> >>> a fairly complex graph of devices including some nice registration stuff to
> >>> cause the correct device drivers to load automatically.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm.  Thinking more on this, there is an ordering issue for driver load.
> >>> Instead of making the modulator nodes children of the modulator, you may need
> >>> to give them their own existence and use a phandle to reference them.
> >>> That will let you defer probe in the filter driver until those
> >>> modulator drivers are ready.
> >>>
> >>> This isn't going to be particularly simple, so you may want to have a look
> >>> at how various other subsystems do similar things and mock up the dependencies
> >>> to make sure you have something that doesn't end up with a loop of dependencies.
> >>> In some ways the modulators are on a bus below the filter, but the filter driver
> >>> needs them to be in place to do the rest.
> >>> You may end up with some sort of delayed load.
> >>> 1. Initial filter driver load + parsing of the modulator dt children (if done that way).
> >>> 2. Filter driver goes to sleep until...
> >>> 3. Modulator drivers call something on the filter driver to say they are ready.
> >>> 4. Filter driver finishes loading and create the IIO device etc.
> >>> You'll need some reference counting etc in there to make removal safe etc but it
> >>> shouldn't be 'too bad'.
> >>>
> >>> Good luck!
> >>>
> >>> Jonathan
> >>>  
> I'am on the way to prototype this proposal for DFSDM.
> Looking at your advices, I see that the current topolgy based on 
> hardware consumer, already meets most of the requirements.
> 
> - SD modulators are described in DT with their own nodes and are 
> referred in DFSDM nodes through their phandle.
> - Dependencies at probe are managed (defer probe through 
> devm_iio_hw_consumer_alloc())
> - SD modulator scaling is retrieved through iio_read_channel_scale() ABI.
> 
> So, it seems that the current implementation is not so far from this 
> solution.
> It remains the unwanted sysfs interface for SD modulator. Or more than 
> that, if I missed something ?
> Instead of introducing a new device type for SD modulator, could the 
> mode field be used to identify devices not requesting an IIO sysfs ?
> (A dedicated mode may be used to skip sysfs register in device registration)
> Otherwise let's go for a new type.

I'd rather see them as a new device type than overload the IIO device.
We want to be able to control what can 'connect' to the DFSDM afterall
and device type is a convenient route to doing this.

Obviously if there is infrastructure that can be factored out and used
for both this and a normal IIO device we can do that to save on duplication.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> Regards
> Olivier


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel