Message-ID: <20130821170213.GA25161@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:02:13 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	Oleksandr Kozaruk <oleksandr.kozaruk@...com>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"rob@...dley.net" <rob@...dley.net>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: Add bindigs documentation for twl6030 GPADC

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 05:22:01PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:41:27PM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:14:51AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 04:34:56PM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:12:28AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > Hi Oleksandr,
> > > > > 
> > > > > [Adding Jonathan Cameron and Guenter Roeck to Cc]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Apologies for the delay replying to this. In attempting to verify this
> > > > > made sense I went and read the IIO bindings documentation, and I'm
> > > > > somewhat confused by the model.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As far as I can see, the only consumer of IIO channels is the
> > > > > "iio-hwmon" binding, which seems to be a binding for Linux-specific
> > > > > infrastructure rather than any actual device. This runs counter to the
> > > > 
> > > > In respect to "iio-hwmon", I think you may actually be correct; we should
> > > > have found a better means to describe the system.
> > > > The intend was to describe that a set of adc inputs is connected
> > > > to a set of voltages or temperature sensors.
> > > > 
> > > > Is there a better way ? I am sure there is, but I have no idea what
> > > > it might be, nor do I have the time to find out.
> > > 
> > > I'd imagine that a better option would be to embed that information in
> > > subnodes of the device:
> > > 
> > > someadc {
> > > 	compatible = "vendor,someadc";
> > > 	/*
> > > 	 * Someadc has 20 independent ADCs, which may be wired
> > > 	 * arbitrarily:
> > > 	 */
> > > 	adc@1 {
> > > 		/* name from datasheet */
> > > 		name = "temp0";
> > > 		vendor,additional-calibration-data = <0x0 0x44>;
> > > 	};
> > > 
> > > 	adc@15 {
> > > 		name = "temp1";
> > > 	};
> > > };
> > > 
> > > The driver for the device then knows which inputs are actually wired,
> > > and can export the channels as necessary to hwmon (or whatever driver we
> > > see fit later down the line).
> > > 
> > It doesn't tell what those channels are connected to, though. It would be
> > important to know, for example, that an ADC channels is connected to a
> > temperature sensor (which would also need bindings) or to a specific voltage
> > channel. Just like the vcc pin of a chip is connected to a regulator,
> > the adc input pins are connected to a regulator as well if the adc is used 
> > to monitor voltages. For vcc that is well understood; for example, I have
> > 
> > 	max1139: voltage-sensor@35 { /* PMB */
> >         	compatible = "maxim,max1139";
> >                 reg = <0x35>;
> >                 vcc-supply = <&reg_3p3v>;
> >                 vref-supply = <&reg_3p3v>;
> >                 #io-channel-cells = <1>;
> >         };
> > 
> > to specify both VCC and VREF for a MAX1139. What would be needed are properties
> > to describe what the ADC input pins are connected to in a generic way
> > so that drivers like iio_hwmon have a chance to pick it up.
> 
> That can easily go in properties of the subnodes, alongside other data
> (e.g. the "vendor,addtional-calibrartion-data" property). As far as I
> can see the current binding still doesn't tell you what the channels are
> actually wired to.
> 
> In the example above there are multiple channels, what do they
> correspond to, and do all of them relate to the vcc and vref?
> 
The example refers to the current bindings. vcc and vref specify chip supply
and reference voltages, not voltages connected to the adc inputs. That would
require a new set of properties.

> > 
> > > > 
> > > > However, I think that the "io-channels" property is well defined.
> > > > 
> > > > "gpios" describes a group of gpio pins which have a common purpose.
> > > > "io-channels" describes a group of io channels (or, ultimately, pins)
> > > > which have a common purpose. So this is not really linux specific,
> > > > unless other operating systems don't see the need of describing a group
> > > > of io channels as single entity. But then the same could be claimed
> > > > about groups of gpio pins.
> > > 
> > > While admittedly there's some correspondence between a gpio being a pin
> > > and a channel being a pin, I don't think that's a good comparison. When
> > > we describe gpios viald $NAME-gpios propertiese, we do so because there
> > > is a physical link between the gpio output and the device.
> > > 
> > > As far as I can tell with io-channels, we describe them to say that they
> > > are wired to something, but what they are actually wired to is not
> > > described (at least in the case of the iio-hwmon binding). Do we have
> > > any devices which require information from external ADCs to be used?
> > > 
> > The problem with iio_hwmon, as I see it, can be boiled down to its compatible
> > string. It doesn't directly describe hardware, so something like
> > 	compatible = "iio-hwmon";
> > looks like a bad choice, though I am not sure if the culprit is the name
> > or what it provides.
> 
> As far as I can see, iio-hwmon just gets passed a set of channels with
> no other information. How does it know what's wired to the ADCs
> providing those channels? I don't think enough information's recorded
> for that to be useful...
> 
That information is currently provided by the iio subsystem, which AFAIK
gets it from the chip driver (Jonathan, any comments ?).

> > 
> > Question is how to express this better. For example, we have "gpio-leds" to
> > describe LEDs connected to GPIO pins. What kind of property could we have to
> > describe IO channels (or adc inputs, if you like) connected to voltage sensors,
> > or any other kind of sensors ?
> 
> I don't see that we encode this in the current bindings. I think this
> linkage can be described per-channel realtively easily if each channel
> is described as a subnode of the device providing the ADC channels. In
> the example I porvided previously, the channel from "temp0" encodes
> calibration information that might be required on a per-device basis to
> map from a raw value to degrees celsius. It may be possible to encode
> additional type information in a relatively standard way:
> 
> someadc {
> 	compatible = "vendor,someadc";
> 
> 	adc@0
> 		reg = <0>;
> 		name = "temp0"; 
> 		type = "temperature";
> 		vendor,temp-calibration-data = <0x0004 0xfee3>;
> 	};
> 
> 	adc@3 {
> 		reg = <3>;
> 		type = "voltage";
> 		vcc-supply = <&reg_3p3v>;
> 		vref-supply = <&reg_3p3v>;
> 		vendor,vref-offset = <0x300>;
> 	};
> };
> 
> I believe that would better describe the device, and describe what the
> IIO framework needs, without requiring any software level abstraction
> (i.e. io channels) to be described in the DT.
> 
Except that vcc-supply and vref-supply are chip properties, not adc channel
properties. I like the general idea, but the property would need a more generic
name (it is not necessarily vcc or vref but could be any voltage).

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists