Message-ID: <20250201162631.2eab9a9a@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:26:31 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Matti Vaittinen
 <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob
 Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor
 Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Linus
 Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>, David
 Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Dumitru Ceclan <mitrutzceclan@...il.com>,
 Trevor Gamblin <tgamblin@...libre.com>, Matteo Martelli
 <matteomartelli3@...il.com>, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
 <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] iio: adc: Support ROHM BD79124 ADC

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 17:38:20 +0200
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:

> On 31/01/2025 19:41, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:37:48 +0200
> > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> The ROHM BD79124 is a 12-bit, 8-channel, SAR ADC. The ADC supports
> >> an automatic measurement mode, with an alarm interrupt for out-of-window
> >> measurements. The window is configurable for each channel.
> >>
> >> The I2C protocol for manual start of the measurement and data reading is
> >> somewhat peculiar. It requires the master to do clock stretching after
> >> sending the I2C slave-address until the slave has captured the data.
> >> Needless to say this is not well suopported by the I2C controllers.  
> > 
> >  From what I recall that is in the I2C spec, so in theory should be supported.
> > Ah well.  
> 
> Could be I am mistaken then. Or, maybe I just misused the term "master 
> to do clock stretching".
> 
> I know that it is not rare the slave device is keeping the clock down 
> for extended period (in this case so that the measurement would be 
> completed) - but at least I am not aware of any APIs which could be used 
> to cause the _master_ side to keep the SCL low for an extended period 
> after receiving the ACK (after sending the slave address). In this case 
> it would require this driver to be able to set a time for how long the 
> master would keep SCL low after sensing the slave address, before 
> sending the "command" bytes.
> 
> |S|ADDRESS+R|a|STRETCH|8-bit-i2c-frame|A|8-bit-i2c-frame|A|STRETCH|8-bit-i2c...
> 
> Above denotes this "master stretching". CAPITALs are initiated by 
> master, lowercase by slave. S, is start, a is ack and R is read-bit.

Ah. That is indeed more unusual. You were correct that i was thinking
of the client side doing the stretching!

> 
> If there is a standard way to implement this in Linux side, then I might 
> consider using it as it'd allowed much higher capture rates.
Not that I'm aware of. 

Wolfram, have you seen anything like this?

> 
> >> It is worth noting that the ADC input pins can be also configured as
> >> general purpose outputs. The pin mode should be configured using pincmux
> >> driver.  
> > 
> > We shouldn't be presenting channels that are configure for GPIOs as
> > ADC channels.  It is very rare that there is a usecase for any
> > dynamic switching.  
> 
> Thanks :) If the dynamic switching is rare, then you're definitely 
> right. I need to see if using the pinmux still makes sense, and if we 
> can implement this while using (separate) pinmux driver.
> 
> > Normally it's a case of what is wired and
> > so static.  
> 
> I should implement a device which can be controlled via it's analog 
> output line :) If nothing else then a device shutting down when it's 
> output is pulled low ;)
> 
> ...Well, I have no real use-case for dynamic config either.
> 
> >  Hence build the iio_chan_spec array for just the
> > channels you want, not the the lot.  Channel sub nodes in the
> > DT are how we most commonly specify what is wired.  
> 
> Hmm. That'd mean the ADC channels _must_ be defined in DT in order to be 
> usable(?) Well, if this is the usual way, then it should be well known 
> by users. Thanks.

Yes. We basically have two types of binding wrt to channels.
1) Always there - no explicit binding, but also no way to describe
   anything specific about the channels.
2) Subnode per channel with stuff from adc.yaml and anything device
   specific.  Only channels that that have a node are enabled.

There are a few drivers that for historical reasons support both
options with 'no channels' meaning 'all channels'.

J

Powered by blists - more mailing lists