On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 10:03:08AM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 22:07 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 11:33:27PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> > > From: Guillaume Roguez <[email protected]>
> > > 
> > > The ADS7830 device is almost the same as the ADS7828,
> > > except that it does 8-bit sampling, instead of 12-bit.
> > > This patch extends the ads7828 driver to support this chip.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Roguez <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <[email protected]>
> > 
> > Guillaume,
> > Vivien,
> > 
> > [ ... ]
> > 
> > > @@ -147,6 +152,7 @@ static int ads7828_detect(struct i2c_client *client,
> > >  {
> > >   struct i2c_adapter *adapter = client->adapter;
> > >   u8 default_cmd_byte = ADS7828_CMD_SD_SE | ADS7828_CMD_PD3;
> > > + bool is_8bit = false;
> > >   int ch;
> > >  
> > >   /* Check we have a valid client */
> > > @@ -158,7 +164,9 @@ static int ads7828_detect(struct i2c_client *client,
> > >    * dedicated register so attempt to sanity check using knowledge of
> > >    * the chip
> > >    * - Read from the 8 channel addresses
> > > -  * - Check the top 4 bits of each result are not set (12 data bits)
> > > +  * - Check the top 4 bits of each result:
> > > +  *   - They should not be set in case of 12-bit samples
> > > +  *   - The two bytes should be equal in case of 8-bit samples
> > >    */
> > >   for (ch = 0; ch < ADS7828_NCH; ch++) {
> > >           u8 cmd = ads7828_cmd_byte(default_cmd_byte, ch);
> > > @@ -168,13 +176,20 @@ static int ads7828_detect(struct i2c_client *client,
> > >                   return -ENODEV;
> > >  
> > >           if (in_data & 0xF000) {
> > > -                 pr_debug("%s : Doesn't look like an ads7828 device\n",
> > > -                          __func__);
> > > -                 return -ENODEV;
> > > +                 if ((in_data >> 8) == (in_data & 0xFF)) {
> > > +                         /* Seems to be an ADS7830 (8-bit sample) */
> > > +                         is_8bit = true;
> > > +                 } else {
> > > +                         dev_dbg(&client->dev, "doesn't look like an 
> > > ADS7828 compatible device\n");
> > > +                         return -ENODEV;
> > > +                 }
> > >           }
> > >   }
> > 
> > I have been thinking about this. The detection function is already quite 
> > weak,
> > and this makes it even weaker. Reason is that you conly check for ADS7830 
> > if the
> > check for ADS7828 failed, and you repeat the pattern for each channel.
> > Unfortunately, that means that you don't check for the ADS7830 condition if 
> > the
> > value returned for a channel happens to be a valid ADS7828 value, even if 
> > it is
> > not valid for ADS7830 (and even if you already know that the chip is not a
> > ADS7828).
> > 
> > Example:
> >     ch=0: 0x1818    --> You know it is not ADS7828
> >     ch=1: 0x0818    --> You know it is not ADS7830, but you don't check for 
> > it
> > 
> > I don't know an optimal solution right now, but maybe something like
> > 
> >     maybe_7828 = true;
> >     maybe_7830 = true;
> >     for (ch = 0; ch < ADS7828_NCH && (maybe_7828 || maybe_7830); ch++) {
> >             ...
> >             if (in_data & 0xF000)
> >                     maybe_7828 = false;
> >             if ((in_data >> 8) != (in_data & 0xFF))
> >                     maybe_7830 = false;
> >     }
> >     if (!maybe_7828 && !maybe_7830)
> >             return -ENODEV;
> > 
> >     if (maybe_7828)
> >             strlcpy(info->type, "ads7828", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
> >     else
> >             strlcpy(info->type, "ads7830", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
> > 
> > Frankly I would prefer to get rid of the _detect function entirely, I just 
> > don't
> > know if that would negatively affect some users. To give you an example for 
> > a
> > bad result: The function will wrongly detect an ADS7830 as ADS7828 if all 
> > ADC
> > channels report a value between 0x00 and 0x0f.
> 
> We totally agree with you here. There is no clean way to detect (i.e. to
> be sure) that this *is* an ADS7828 compatible device.
> 
> > How do you use the chip ? Do you need the detect function in your 
> > application ?
> 
> In our application, this device is statically declared in the platform
> support code, so we don't need to "detect" it.
> 
> I propose to re-send a v5 with the "s/u16 in_data/int in_data/" fix and
> the ads7828_detect() removal in the first cleanup patch, then the
> ADS7830 support. Does it sound good for you?
> 
Yes.

Thanks,
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to