linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: add ad5761 DAC driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:13:04 +0000
From:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:	Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>
Cc:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
	Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
	Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: add ad5761 DAC driver

On 20/12/15 11:19, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
> Hello Jonthan
> 
> Thanks for your comments, I have fixed all the style problems in v2,
> so we can focus in the range parameter.
> 
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
>> Range isn't actually specified in the ABI docs.
>> Documenation\ABI\testing\sysfs-bus-iio*
>> The control interface for this is normally scale rather than range
>> (we had to pick one of the two and that is the way it fell out)  Usually
>> hardware designers care about range, but userspace programs are often
>> most directly interested in scale factors that need to be applied.
>> (and that was my most rediculously over generalized statement for the day ;)
> 
> What about a first version of the driver where the range is set via
> pdata and is not userland configurable?
> That way the four chips will be supported and we can have more
> feedback from other users about the range issue.
That would be fine.  Generally I'd imagine a given board will only want to
have one sensible choice anyway! (other than devkits at least)
> 
>>
>> I can see this is rather complex here given the random looking collection
>> of associated scales and offsets.  You would have to have _available
>> attributes to say what offsets are available at a given scale I think.
>> Also we'd have to then define a precedence order in the docs for the
>> two attributes (worth doing to make it obvious what to do when this
>> sort of setup arises).
> 
> The problem with that approach is that there will be two operations to
> set the range: one  to change the scale, and another for the offset.  The output
> voltage will change twice in this process and may have an intermediate value
> that can damage a circuit.
Fair point - I had not thought of that.  Hmm.. Could add a commit type attribute
but that's ugly too.

Even if we do allow changing the range ultimately, I think
it would need some hard restrictions in platform data on what is 'safe' for a
particular board.
> 
> I also believe that my approach with a text description is more user friendly
> (but problably because I programmed it :P)
> 
> In any case, I will implement whatever we agree ;)
For now, pdata sounds like the best plan and revisit this at a later date.

Jonathan
> 
> Best regards!
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

--
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/