[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240602135726.2f10fd2b@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 13:57:26 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>
Cc: lars@...afoo.de, himanshujha199640@...il.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 11/17] iio: chemical: bme680: Use bulk reads for
calibration data
On Mon, 27 May 2024 20:37:59 +0200
Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com> wrote:
> Calibration data are located in contiguous-ish registers
> inside the chip. For that reason we can use bulk reads as is
> done as well in the BME68x Sensor API [1].
>
> The arrays that are used for reading the data out of the sensor
> are located inside DMA safe buffer.
See below. I think in this case that isn't necessary.
However it's a quirk of how the custom regmap works. Whilst
we can't rely on regmap core spi implementations continuing to
bounce buffer, we can rely on one local to our particular driver.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/boschsensortec/BME68x_SensorAPI/blob/v4.4.8/bme68x.c#L1769
> Signed-off-by: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_core.c b/drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_core.c
> index 681f271f9b06..ed4cdb4d64af 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_core.c
> +
> struct bme680_calib {
> u16 par_t1;
> s16 par_t2;
> @@ -64,6 +109,16 @@ struct bme680_data {
> * and humidity compensation calculations.
> */
> s32 t_fine;
> +
> + /*
> + * DMA (thus cache coherency maintenance) may require the
> + * transfer buffers to live in their own cache lines.
> + */
> + union {
> + u8 bme680_cal_buf_1[BME680_CALIB_RANGE_1_LEN];
> + u8 bme680_cal_buf_2[BME680_CALIB_RANGE_2_LEN];
> + u8 bme680_cal_buf_3[BME680_CALIB_RANGE_3_LEN];
> + } __aligned(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN);
Ah! I should have read ahead. I don't think you need this alignment forcing
because bme680_regmap_spi_read uses spi_write_then_read() which always
bounces the data.
> };
>
> static const struct regmap_range bme680_volatile_ranges[] = {
> @@ -112,217 +167,73 @@ static int bme680_read_calib(struct bme680_data *data,
> struct bme680_calib *calib)
> {
> + calib->par_h3 = data->bme680_cal_buf_2[H3];
> + calib->par_h4 = data->bme680_cal_buf_2[H4];
> + calib->par_h5 = data->bme680_cal_buf_2[H5];
> + calib->par_h6 = data->bme680_cal_buf_2[H6];
> + calib->par_h7 = data->bme680_cal_buf_2[H7];
> + calib->par_t1 = get_unaligned_le16(&data->bme680_cal_buf_2[T1_LSB]);
> + calib->par_gh2 = get_unaligned_le16(&data->bme680_cal_buf_2[GH2_LSB]);
> + calib->par_gh1 = data->bme680_cal_buf_2[GH1];
> + calib->par_gh3 = data->bme680_cal_buf_2[GH3];
>
> - ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, BME680_H7_REG, &tmp);
> + ret = regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, BME680_REG_RES_HEAT_VAL,
> + &data->bme680_cal_buf_3[0],
This one is always debated, but personally I'd prefer
data->bme680_cal_buf_3,
for cases like this. Up to you though.
> + sizeof(data->bme680_cal_buf_3));
> if (ret < 0) {
> - dev_err(dev, "failed to read BME680_H7_REG\n");
> + dev_err(dev, "failed to read 3rd set of calib data;\n");
> return ret;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists