Re: [PATCH v3] iio: add driver for Microchip MCP413X/414X/415X/416X/423X/424X/425X/426X

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On 20/03/16 16:12, Joachim Eastwood wrote:
> Hi Slawomir,
> 
> On 20 March 2016 at 15:30, Slawomir Stepien <sst@poczta.fm> wrote:
>> The following functionalities are supported:
>>  - write, read from volatile memory
> 
> I think it would be useful if you could put 'potentiometer' either in
> the subject and/or commit text so it is more obvious what this driver
> is for.
> 
>> Datasheet: http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/22060b.pdf
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Slawomir Stepien <sst@poczta.fm>
> 
>> +
>> +struct mcp4131_data {
>> +       struct spi_device *spi;
>> +       const struct mcp4131_cfg *cfg;
>> +       struct mutex lock;
>> +       struct spi_transfer xfer;
>> +       struct spi_message msg;
>> +       u8 buf[2] ____cacheline_aligned;
>> +};
>> +
>> +#define MCP4131_CHANNEL(ch) {                                  \
>> +       .type = IIO_RESISTANCE,                                 \
>> +       .indexed = 1,                                           \
>> +       .output = 1,                                            \
>> +       .channel = (ch),                                        \
>> +       .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW),           \
>> +       .info_mask_shared_by_type = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),   \
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct iio_chan_spec mcp4131_channels[] = {
>> +       MCP4131_CHANNEL(0),
>> +       MCP4131_CHANNEL(1),
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int mcp4131_exec(struct mcp4131_data *data,
>> +               u8 addr, u8 cmd,
>> +               u16 val)
>> +{
>> +       int err;
>> +       struct spi_device *spi = data->spi;
>> +
>> +       data->xfer.tx_buf = data->buf;
>> +       data->xfer.rx_buf = data->buf;
>> +
>> +       switch (cmd) {
>> +       case MCP4131_READ:
>> +               data->xfer.len = 2; /* Two bytes transfer for this command */
>> +               data->buf[0] = (addr << MCP4131_WIPER_SHIFT) | MCP4131_READ;
>> +               data->buf[1] = 0;
>> +               break;
>> +
>> +       case MCP4131_WRITE:
>> +               data->xfer.len = 2;
>> +               data->buf[0] = (addr << MCP4131_WIPER_SHIFT) |
>> +                       MCP4131_WRITE | (val >> 8);
>> +               data->buf[1] = val & 0xFF; /* 8 bits here */
>> +               break;
>> +
>> +       default:
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "mcp4131_exec: tx0: 0x%x tx1: 0x%x\n",
>> +                       data->buf[0], data->buf[1]);
>> +
>> +       spi_message_init(&data->msg);
>> +       spi_message_add_tail(&data->xfer, &data->msg);
>> +
>> +       err = spi_sync(spi, &data->msg);
>> +       if (err) {
>> +               dev_err(&spi->dev, "spi_sync(): %d\n", err);
>> +               return err;
>> +       }
> 
> Isn't this init, add, sync sequence basically open coding of what
> spi_write/spi_read does?
> If you could use those you could also get rid transfer/message structs
> in priv data.
I initially wrote the same comment, then realised it's more nuanced than
that.  Whilst this initially looks like an w8r8 type cycle it's actually
something like w4r12 in the read case anyway.  The write case could indeed
be done with spi_write.
> 
> Also it these any reason why the data buffer can just be a local
> variable in mcp4131_read_raw/mcp4131_write_raw?
Only with if it is allocated on the heap as required to enforce the rule
it is on a separate cache line.  Much easier to do that once!

> If it could be I think it should be possible to move the lock into the
> mcp4131_exec function.
> 
>> +
>> +       dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "mcp4131_exec: rx0: 0x%x rx1: 0x%x\n",
>> +                       data->buf[0], data->buf[1]);
>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int mcp4131_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> +                           struct iio_chan_spec const *chan,
>> +                           int *val, int *val2, long mask)
>> +{
>> +       int err;
>> +       struct mcp4131_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>> +       int address = chan->channel;
>> +
>> +       mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>> +
>> +       switch (mask) {
>> +       case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
>> +               err = mcp4131_exec(data, address, MCP4131_READ, 0);
>> +               if (err) {
>> +                       mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> +                       return err;
>> +               }
>> +
>> +               /* Error, bad address/command combination */
>> +               if (!MCP4131_CMDERR(data->buf)) {
>> +                       mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> +                       return -EIO;
>> +               }
>> +
>> +               *val = MCP4131_RAW(data->buf);
>> +               mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> +               return IIO_VAL_INT;
>> +
>> +       case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
>> +               *val = 1000 * data->cfg->kohms;
>> +               *val2 = data->cfg->max_pos;
>> +               mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> 
> Is locking really necessary for IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE?
> Isn't all data->cfg stuff constant?
> 
> 
>> +               return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> +
>> +       return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int mcp4131_write_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> +                            struct iio_chan_spec const *chan,
>> +                            int val, int val2, long mask)
>> +{
>> +       int err;
>> +       struct mcp4131_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>> +       int address = chan->channel << MCP4131_WIPER_SHIFT;
>> +
>> +       mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>> +
>> +       switch (mask) {
>> +       case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
>> +               if (val > data->cfg->max_pos || val < 0) {
>> +                       mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> +                       return -EINVAL;
>> +               }
>> +               break;
>> +       default:
>> +               mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       err = mcp4131_exec(data, address, MCP4131_WRITE, val);
>> +       mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> 
> While this is not a huge function it is usually good practice to keep
> the locking scope as small as possible.
> 
> So wouldn't this be sufficient here.
>     mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>     err = mcp4131_exec(data, address, MCP4131_WRITE, val);
>     mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> 
> Of course if you are able move the lock into mcp4131_exec this will go away.
> 
> 
> regards,
> Joachim Eastwood
>