From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: "Nuno Sá" <nuno.sa@analog.com>
Cc: <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add support for LTC2688
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:13:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211230151357.6c7dea0d@jic23-huawei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211214165608.7903-1-nuno.sa@analog.com>
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:56:05 +0100
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com> wrote:
> The ABI defined for this driver has some subtleties that were previously
> discussed in this RFC [1]. This might not be the final state but,
> hopefully, we are close to it:
>
> toggle mode channels:
>
> * out_voltageY_toggle_en
> * out_voltageY_raw1
> * out_voltageY_symbol
>
> dither mode channels:
>
> * out_voltageY_dither_en
> * out_voltageY_dither_raw
> * out_voltageY_dither_raw_available
> * out_voltageY_dither_frequency
> * out_voltageY_dither_frequency_available
> * out_voltageY_dither_phase
> * out_voltageY_dither_phase_available
>
> Default channels won't have any of the above ABIs. A channel is toggle
> capable if the devicetree 'adi,toggle-mode' flag is set. For dither, the
> assumption is more silent. If 'adi,toggle-mode' is not given and a
> channel is associated with a TGPx pin through 'adi,toggle-dither-input',
> then the channel is assumed to be dither capable (there's no point in
> having a dither capable channel without an input clock).
>
> There are some stuff where I'm still not 100% convinced though:
>
> 1. out_voltageY_dither_raw refers to the dither amplitude. There are some
> differences but in essence, the same scale as the raw attr applies. That
> is not true for the offset as it's always 0. This is stated in the ABI
> file and being an amplitude is more or less obvious. However, I'm not
> sure if it's still valuable to have an ut_voltageY_dither_offset?
I think if we have out_voltageY_offset then we should have
out_voltageY_dither_offset to avoid any potential confusion + appropriate
ABI docs text to make it clear that that the more specific _offset takes
precedence. I have some vague recollection we had a debate about a similar
case in the past where we had
in_voltageX_offset that covered lots of channels and in_voltage99_offset
(number made up) that just happened to be different. Not sure any
driver takes advantage of ABI perhaps allowing (not sure it's written down)
a more specific attribute to override a generic one...
>
> 2. For now, if 'adi,toggle-dither-input' is given, a correspondent clock
> as to be given as well. While this makes sense for dither channels, I'm
> not so sure for toggle ones. I can easily see a toggled channel being
> controlled by, for example, an host GPIO.
I agree. But I think we can relax this when needed rather than it being
necessary to allow for more complex toggle conditions from the start.
Generating a clock driven set of voltages is probably a common usecase
for toggle mode so fine to just support that one until another usecase
comes along.
>
> 3. Dither capable channels are being silently "assumed" by the driver.
> Not sure if an "adi,mode" dt property would make sense. Having this
> explicitly could make it easier to express some dependencies in the
> bindings file.
I kind of like the assumed default of toggle if the pin is wired up, but
if you prefer an explicit control it becomes a question of whether
Rob (and maybe others) think the binding is sane or not.
>
> 4. For now the clocks property is not part of the channels object.
> The reason for this is that we only have 3 possible clocks for 16
> channels so I wanted to avoid getting and enabling the same clock more
> than once. But that is not really an issue and together with 3) it
> could, again, make it easier to express some dependencies in the bindings
> file. That said, I'm pending in doing this property a channel one (as it
> truly is) unless I get feedback otherwise.
Interesting question on how to do this. Maybe a questions where Rob's
input would be particularly useful. Likely to be similar cases somewhere
else from a dt-binding point of view.
Jonathan
>
> [1]: https://marc.info/?l=linux-iio&m=163662843603265&w=2
>
> Nuno Sá (3):
> iio: dac: add support for ltc2688
> iio: ABI: add ABI file for the LTC2688 DAC
> dt-bindings: iio: Add ltc2688 documentation
>
> .../ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio-dac-ltc2688 | 67 +
> .../bindings/iio/dac/adi,ltc2688.yaml | 146 +++
> MAINTAINERS | 9 +
> drivers/iio/dac/Kconfig | 11 +
> drivers/iio/dac/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c | 1081 +++++++++++++++++
> 6 files changed, 1315 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio-dac-ltc2688
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ltc2688.yaml
> create mode 100644 drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-30 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-14 16:56 [PATCH 0/3] Add support for LTC2688 Nuno Sá
2021-12-14 16:56 ` [PATCH 1/3] iio: dac: add support for ltc2688 Nuno Sá
2021-12-15 10:23 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2021-12-15 13:40 ` Sa, Nuno
2021-12-15 13:55 ` Sa, Nuno
2021-12-15 15:58 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2021-12-15 17:08 ` Sa, Nuno
2021-12-16 14:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-12-17 12:31 ` Sa, Nuno
2021-12-30 15:28 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-01-07 15:44 ` Sa, Nuno
2021-12-14 16:56 ` [PATCH 2/3] iio: ABI: add ABI file for the LTC2688 DAC Nuno Sá
2021-12-16 13:35 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-12-17 11:59 ` Sa, Nuno
2021-12-14 16:56 ` [PATCH 3/3] dt-bindings: iio: Add ltc2688 documentation Nuno Sá
2021-12-15 21:30 ` Rob Herring
2021-12-16 13:32 ` Jonathan Cameron
2021-12-17 9:09 ` Sa, Nuno
2021-12-30 15:43 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-01-07 15:49 ` Sa, Nuno
2021-12-30 15:13 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2022-01-07 15:32 ` [PATCH 0/3] Add support for LTC2688 Sa, Nuno
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211230151357.6c7dea0d@jic23-huawei \
--to=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=Michael.Hennerich@analog.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nuno.sa@analog.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).