[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250831162549.5395fa37@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2025 16:25:49 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Ben Collins <bcollins@...nel.org>
Cc: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Nuno Sá
<nuno.sa@...log.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Antoniu Miclaus
<antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Michael
Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/5] iio: ad4080: Rework filter_type "none" logic
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 15:11:14 -0400
Ben Collins <bcollins@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 11:51:56AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> > On 8/25/25 7:10 PM, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > The filter_type logic for "none" needed to be reworked to be more
> > > general.
> > >
> > > As documented, return IIO_VAL_EMPTY for sampling rates in "none" type
> > > and EINVAL when there's an attempt to write a rate for "none" type.
> >
> > This patch breaks usespace, which is something we always must avoid.
>
> I was under the impression there was a need to make the use of
> filter_type "none" more consistent.
>
> I don't disagree with not breaking userspace, but it does create
> ambiguity for other implementations.
For oversampling the value of 1 has long been used for
'not oversampling'. So I'm not seeing an ambiguity there.
Jonathan
>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Collins <bcollins@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iio/adc/ad4080.c | 23 ++++++++++-------------
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ad4080.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ad4080.c
> > > index 6e61787ed3213fe4332bd92b938a7a717dada99f..c7408b9703731ee5d4229a85ffa91ea64b233cd9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ad4080.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ad4080.c
> > > @@ -154,8 +154,6 @@ static const int ad4080_dec_rate_avail[] = {
> > > 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024,
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static const int ad4080_dec_rate_none[] = { 1 };
> > > -
> > > static const char * const ad4080_power_supplies[] = {
> > > "vdd33", "vdd11", "vddldo", "iovdd", "vrefin",
> > > };
> > > @@ -268,13 +266,13 @@ static int ad4080_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > > *val = st->clk_rate;
> > > return IIO_VAL_INT;
> > > case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OVERSAMPLING_RATIO:
> > > - if (st->filter_type == FILTER_NONE) {
> > > - *val = 1;
> > > - } else {
> > > - *val = ad4080_get_dec_rate(indio_dev, chan);
> > > - if (*val < 0)
> > > - return *val;
> > > - }
> > > + if (st->filter_type == FILTER_NONE)
> > > + return IIO_VAL_EMPTY;
> > > +
> > > + *val = ad4080_get_dec_rate(indio_dev, chan);
> > > + if (*val < 0)
> > > + return *val;
> > > +
> > > return IIO_VAL_INT;
> > > default:
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > @@ -289,7 +287,7 @@ static int ad4080_write_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > >
> > > switch (mask) {
> > > case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OVERSAMPLING_RATIO:
> > > - if (st->filter_type == FILTER_NONE && val > 1)
> > > + if (st->filter_type == FILTER_NONE)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > return ad4080_set_dec_rate(indio_dev, chan, val);
> > > @@ -376,17 +374,16 @@ static int ad4080_read_avail(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > > case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OVERSAMPLING_RATIO:
> > > switch (st->filter_type) {
> > > case FILTER_NONE:
> > > - *vals = ad4080_dec_rate_none;
> > > - *length = ARRAY_SIZE(ad4080_dec_rate_none);
> > > + *type = IIO_VAL_EMPTY;
> > > break;
> > > default:
> > > *vals = ad4080_dec_rate_avail;
> > > *length = st->filter_type >= SINC_5 ?
> > > (ARRAY_SIZE(ad4080_dec_rate_avail) - 2) :
> > > ARRAY_SIZE(ad4080_dec_rate_avail);
> > > + *type = IIO_VAL_INT;
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > - *type = IIO_VAL_INT;
> > > return IIO_AVAIL_LIST;
> > > default:
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> >
> > Returning a value of 1 for the oversampling ratio when there is no
> > oversampling going on is perfectly reasonable and mathematically correct.
> > So I don't consider this change an improvement.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists