Message-ID: <e7aacdc36be2bc11dc0e5ce5cf135482257d2a7d.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:49:29 +0200
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Angelo Dureghello
	 <adureghello@...libre.com>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Michael Hennerich
 <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, Nuno Sá
 <nuno.sa@...log.com>,  Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,  Olivier Moysan
 <olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 dlechner@...libre.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/8] iio: backend adi-axi-dac: backend features

On Tue, 2024-09-03 at 20:16 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 18:04:51 +0200
> Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@...libre.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 31/08/24 1:34 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:32:01 +0200
> > > Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@...libre.com> wrote:
> > >  
> > > > From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@...libre.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Extend DAC backend with new features required for the AXI driver
> > > > version for the a3552r DAC.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@...libre.com>  
> > > Hi Angelo
> > > Minor comments inline.  
> > > >   
> > > >   static int axi_dac_enable(struct iio_backend *back)
> > > > @@ -460,7 +493,13 @@ static int axi_dac_data_source_set(struct
> > > > iio_backend *back, unsigned int chan,
> > > >   	case IIO_BACKEND_EXTERNAL:
> > > >   		return regmap_update_bits(st->regmap,
> > > >   					 
> > > > AXI_DAC_REG_CHAN_CNTRL_7(chan),
> > > > -					  AXI_DAC_DATA_SEL,
> > > > AXI_DAC_DATA_DMA);
> > > > +					  AXI_DAC_DATA_SEL,
> > > > +					  AXI_DAC_DATA_DMA);  
> > > Unrelated change.   If you want to change this, separate patch.  
> > Thanks, fixed.
> > >  
> > > > +	case IIO_BACKEND_INTERNAL_RAMP_16:
> > > > +		return regmap_update_bits(st->regmap,
> > > > +					 
> > > > AXI_DAC_REG_CHAN_CNTRL_7(chan),
> > > > +					  AXI_DAC_DATA_SEL,
> > > > +					 
> > > > AXI_DAC_DATA_INTERNAL_RAMP_16);
> > > >   	default:
> > > >   		return -EINVAL;
> > > >   	}
> > > > @@ -518,9 +557,204 @@ static int axi_dac_reg_access(struct iio_backend
> > > > *back, unsigned int reg,
> > > >   	return regmap_write(st->regmap, reg, writeval);
> > > >   }
> > > >   
> > > > +
> > > > +static int axi_dac_bus_reg_write(struct iio_backend *back,
> > > > +				 u32 reg, void *val, size_t size)  
> > > Maybe just pass an unsigned int for val?
> > > So follow what regmap does? You will still need the size, but it
> > > will just be configuration related rather than affecting the type
> > > of val.
> > >  
> > void * was used since data size in the future may vary depending
> > on the bus physical interface.
> > 
> I doubt it will get bigger than u64.  Passing void * is always
> nasty if we can do something else and this is a register writing
> operation.  I'm yet to meet an ADC or similar with > 64 bit registers
> (or even one with 64 bit ones!)

I think the original thinking was to support thinks like appending crc to the
register read/write. But even in that case, u32 for val might be enough. Not
sure. Anyways, as you often say with the backend stuff, this is all in the
kernel so I guess we can change it to unsigned int and change it in the future
if we need to.

Since you mentioned regmap, I also want to bring something that was discussed
before the RFC. Basically we talked about having the backend registering it's
own regmap_bus. Then we would either:

1) Have a specific get_regmap_bus() callback for the frontend to initialize a
regmap on;
2) Pass this bus into the core and have a new frontend API like
devm_iio_backend_regmap_init().

Then, on top of the API already provided by regmap (like _update_bit()), the
frontend could just use regmap independent of having a backend or not.

The current API is likely more generic but tbh (and David and Angelo are aware
of it) my preferred approach it to use the regmap_bus stuff. I just don't feel
that strong about it :)

> 
> > Actually, a reg bus write involves several AXI regmap operations.
> > >  
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct axi_dac_state *st = iio_backend_get_priv(back);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!st->bus_type)
> > > > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (st->bus_type == AXI_DAC_BUS_TYPE_QSPI) {  
> > > As below, I'd use a switch and factor out this block as a separate
> > > bus specific function.  
> > Ok, changed.
> > >  
> > > > +		int ret;
> > > > +		u32 ival;
> > > > +
> > > > +		if (size != 1 && size != 2)
> > > > +			return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > +		switch (size) {
> > > > +		case 1:
> > > > +			ival = FIELD_PREP(AXI_DAC_DATA_WR_8, *(u8
> > > > *)val);
> > > > +			break;
> > > > +		case 2:
> > > > +			ival =  FIELD_PREP(AXI_DAC_DATA_WR_16, *(u16
> > > > *)val);
> > > > +			break;
> > > > +		default:
> > > > +			return  -EINVAL;  
> > > Hopefully compiler won't need this and the above. I'd drop the size != 1..
> > > check in favour of just doing it in this switch.
> > >  
> > sure, done.
> > 
> > 
> > > > +		}
> > > > +
> > > > +		ret = regmap_write(st->regmap, AXI_DAC_CNTRL_DATA_WR,
> > > > ival);
> > > > +		if (ret)
> > > > +			return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * Both REG_CNTRL_2 and AXI_DAC_CNTRL_DATA_WR need to
> > > > know
> > > > +		 * the data size. So keeping data size control here
> > > > only,
> > > > +		 * since data size is mandatory for to the current
> > > > transfer.
> > > > +		 * DDR state handled separately by specific backend
> > > > calls,
> > > > +		 * generally all raw register writes are SDR.
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		if (size == 1)
> > > > +			ret = regmap_set_bits(st->regmap,
> > > > AXI_DAC_REG_CNTRL_2,
> > > > +					      AXI_DAC_SYMB_8B);
> > > > +		else
> > > > +			ret = regmap_clear_bits(st->regmap,
> > > > AXI_DAC_REG_CNTRL_2,
> > > > +						AXI_DAC_SYMB_8B);
> > > > +		if (ret)
> > > > +			return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +		ret = regmap_update_bits(st->regmap,
> > > > AXI_DAC_REG_CUSTOM_CTRL,
> > > > +					 AXI_DAC_ADDRESS,
> > > > +					 FIELD_PREP(AXI_DAC_ADDRESS,
> > > > reg));
> > > > +		if (ret)
> > > > +			return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +		ret = regmap_update_bits(st->regmap,
> > > > AXI_DAC_REG_CUSTOM_CTRL,
> > > > +					 AXI_DAC_TRANSFER_DATA,
> > > > +					 AXI_DAC_TRANSFER_DATA);
> > > > +		if (ret)
> > > > +			return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +		ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(st->regmap,
> > > > +					       AXI_DAC_REG_CUSTOM_CTRL,
> > > > ival,
> > > > +					       ival &
> > > > AXI_DAC_TRANSFER_DATA,
> > > > +					       10, 100 * KILO);
> > > > +		if (ret)
> > > > +			return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +		return regmap_clear_bits(st->regmap,
> > > > AXI_DAC_REG_CUSTOM_CTRL,
> > > > +					  AXI_DAC_TRANSFER_DATA);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	return -EINVAL;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int axi_dac_bus_reg_read(struct iio_backend *back,
> > > > +				u32 reg, void *val, size_t size)  
> > > As for write, I'd just use an unsigned int * for val like
> > > regmap does.  
> > 
> > Ok, so initial choice was unsigned int, further thinking of
> > possible future busses drive the choice to void *.
> > 
> > Let me know, i can switch to unsigned int in case.
> I would just go with unsigned int or at a push u64 *
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct axi_dac_state *st = iio_backend_get_priv(back);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!st->bus_type)
> > > > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (st->bus_type == AXI_DAC_BUS_TYPE_QSPI) {  
> > > It got mentioned in binding review but if this isn't QSPI, even
> > > if similar don't call it that.  
> > 
> > It's a bit difficult to find a different name, physically,
> > it is a QSPI, 4 lanes + clock + cs, and datasheet is naming it Quad SPI.
> > But looking the data protocol, it's a bit different.
> 
> is QSPI actually defined anywhere? I assumed it would be like
> SPI for which everything is so flexible you can build whatever you like.
> 
> > 
> > QSPI has instruction, address and data.
> > Here we have just ADDR and DATA.
> > 

I'm not sure the instruction is really relevant for this. From a quick look, it
feels like something used for accessing external flash memory like spi-nors. So,
I would not be surprised if things are just like Jonathan said and this is just
flexible as spi (being that extra instruction field a protocol defined for flash
memory - where one typically sees this interface)

- Nuno Sá
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists