Re: [RESEND PATCH] iio: light: add support for TI's opt3001 light sensor

From: Felipe Balbi
Date: Mon Sep 29 2014 - 10:02:57 EST

Next message: Boris Brezillon: "[PATCH v2 0/5] video: describe data bus formats"
Previous message: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk: "Re: [PATCH] xen/xenbus: Use 'void' instead of 'int' for the return of xenbus_switch_state()"
Next in thread: Jonathan Cameron: "Re: [RESEND PATCH] iio: light: add support for TI's opt3001 light sensor"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alright, this is already ridiculous. Andrew, if I resend the patch can
you apply it since maintainer has been ignoring this thread anyway ?

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:19:59PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> ping
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 05:16:19PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > ping
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:36:10AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > ping
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 09:09:24AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > ping
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 09:09:14AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > ping
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:21:29AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > > ping
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:36:31AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > > > ping
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:00:41AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > > > > ping
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:03:16PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ping
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:21:37AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 05:52:02PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 02/09/14 16:17, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > TI's opt3001 light sensor is a simple and yet powerful
> > > > > > > > > > > > little device. The device provides 99% IR rejection,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Automatic full-scale, very low power consumption and
> > > > > > > > > > > > measurements from 0.01 to 83k lux.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This patch adds support for that device using the IIO
> > > > > > > > > > > > framework.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Resending as I saw no changes on the thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Felipe,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay on this, entirely my fault - been busy and forgot
> > > > > > > > > > > I still had questions about what was going on in here (yup its the
> > > > > > > > > > > hysteresis bit again!)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > right, this is starting to become way too much headache for such a
> > > > > > > > > > simple device. Sorry will not help me getting this driver upstream. When
> > > > > > > > > > I first sent this (August 6), we didn't even have v3.17-rc1, now we're
> > > > > > > > > > about to tag -rc5 and I'm worried this driver will not hit v3.18 merge
> > > > > > > > > > window.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Anyhow, I'm afraid I am still a little confused about the meaning you
> > > > > > > > > > > have assigned to Hysteresis in this driver.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Let me conjecture on what might be going on here (I may be entirely
> > > > > > > > > > > wrong).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Normally a hysteresis value in IIO is defined as the 'distance' back
> > > > > > > > > > > from a threshold that a signal must go before it may retrip the
> > > > > > > > > > > threshold.
> > > > > > > > > > > This threshold value is separately controlled. Thus if we have a
> > > > > > > > > > > rising threshold of 10 and an hysteresis of 2 - to get two events the
> > > > > > > > > > > signal must first rise past 10, then drop back below 8 and rise again
> > > > > > > > > > > past 10.
> > > > > > > > > > > If it drops below 10 but not 8 and rises again past 10 then we will
> > > > > > > > > > > not get an event.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So having the same register for both the hysteresis and the threshold
> > > > > > > > > > > doesn't with this description make much sense. It would mean that you
> > > > > > > > > > > could only have a threshold of say 10 and a hysteresis of 10, thus in
> > > > > > > > > > > effect meaning the signal would always have to cross 0 before the next
> > > > > > > > > > > event whatever the combined threshold / hysteresis value?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps instead the device is automatically adjusting the threshold
> > > > > > > > > > > when we cross it and the 'hysteresis' here is with respect to a the
> > > > > > > > > > > previous threshold?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thus if we start with a value of 0 and hysteresis is set to 2 it will
> > > > > > > > > > > trigger an event at:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 as we rise?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This sort of auto adjustment of levels isn't uncommon in light sensors
> > > > > > > > > > > (where the point of the interrupt is to notify the operating system
> > > > > > > > > > > that a 'significant' change has occurred and things like screen
> > > > > > > > > > > brightness may need adjusting.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If so then the current hysteresis interface does not apply, nor does
> > > > > > > > > > > the Rate of Change (ROC) interface as this is dependent on amount of
> > > > > > > > > > > change, not how fast it changed. Hence we needs something new to
> > > > > > > > > > > handle this cleanly. I would suggest a new event type. Perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > > something with sysfs attr naming along the lines of
> > > > > > > > > > > What: /sys/.../iio:deviceX/events/in_light_change_rising_en
> > > > > > > > > > > What: /sys/.../iio:deviceX/events/in_light_change_rising_value
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > etc?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > will you just tell me what you want ? I really cannot give a crap
> > > > > > > > > > anymore. This has already taken me over a month of my time for such a
> > > > > > > > > > simple little device, not to mention your confusing and contradicting
> > > > > > > > > > change requests.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (could you also trim your responses ? it's very annoying to scroll so
> > > > > > > > > > much)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_RESULT 0x00
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_CONFIGURATION 0x01
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_LOW_LIMIT 0x02
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_HIGH_LIMIT 0x03
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_MANUFACTURER_ID 0x7e
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_DEVICE_ID 0x7f
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_CONFIGURATION_RN_MASK (0xf << 12)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_CONFIGURATION_RN_AUTO (0xc << 12)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_CONFIGURATION_CT BIT(11)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_CONFIGURATION_M_MASK (3 << 9)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_CONFIGURATION_M_SHUTDOWN (0 << 9)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_CONFIGURATION_M_SINGLE (1 << 9)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define OPT3001_CONFIGURATION_M_CONTINUOUS (2 << 9) /* also 3 << 9 */
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I guess this naming is straight off the datasheet, but it is rather
> > > > > > > > > > > more cryptic than perhaps it needs to be! That's kind of an issue
> > > > > > > > > > > with the datasheet choices rather than what you have here however!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > man, are you nit-picky!! These are named as such to make grepping on
> > > > > > > > > > documentation easier. It's better to have something that matches
> > > > > > > > > > documentation, don't you think ? otherwise, future users/developers of
> > > > > > > > > > these driver will need either a shit ton of comments explaining that A
> > > > > > > > > > maps to B in docs, or will need a fscking crystal ball to read my mind.
> > > > > > > > > > Assuming I'll still remember what I meant.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +static int opt3001_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > > > + struct iio_dev *iio = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > > > > > > > > > > > + struct opt3001 *opt = iio_priv(iio);
> > > > > > > > > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > > + u16 reg;
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > + free_irq(client->irq, iio);
> > > > > > > > > > > > + iio_device_unregister(iio);
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > + ret = i2c_smbus_read_word_swapped(opt->client, OPT3001_CONFIGURATION);
> > > > > > > > > > > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > + dev_err(opt->dev, "failed to read register %02x\n",
> > > > > > > > > > > > + OPT3001_CONFIGURATION);
> > > > > > > > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > + reg = ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > > + opt3001_set_mode(opt, &reg, OPT3001_CONFIGURATION_M_SHUTDOWN);
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > + ret = i2c_smbus_write_word_swapped(opt->client, OPT3001_CONFIGURATION,
> > > > > > > > > > > > + reg);
> > > > > > > > > > > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > + dev_err(opt->dev, "failed to write register %02x\n",
> > > > > > > > > > > > + OPT3001_CONFIGURATION);
> > > > > > > > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > + iio_device_free(iio);
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Use the devm_iio_device_alloc and you can drop the need to free it.
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't really mind, but I'll almost guarantee that someone will post
> > > > > > > > > > > a follow up patch doing this if you don't. As it will be ever so
> > > > > > > > > > > slightly cleaner, I'll probably take that patch.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > here's the original driver:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-iio/msg14331.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > notice that it *WAS* *USING* devm_iio_device_alloc(), until:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-iio/msg14421.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > you *SPECIFICALLY* asked for *NON* *DEVM* versions!!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So figure out what you really want, let me know and I'll code it all up
> > > > > > > > > > quickly and hopefully still get this into v3.18 merge window. I sent
> > > > > > > > > > this driver *very* early to be doubly sure it would hit v3.18 and there
> > > > > > > > > > was a long hiatus from yourself which is now jeopardizing what I was
> > > > > > > > > > expecting. That, coupled with your contradicting requests, has just put
> > > > > > > > > > me in a bad mood, even before Monday, hurray.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > cheers
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > balbi
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > balbi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > balbi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > balbi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > balbi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > balbi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > balbi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > balbi
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > balbi
>
>
>
> --
> balbi

--
balbi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Next message: Boris Brezillon: "[PATCH v2 0/5] video: describe data bus formats"
Previous message: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk: "Re: [PATCH] xen/xenbus: Use 'void' instead of 'int' for the return of xenbus_switch_state()"
Next in thread: Jonathan Cameron: "Re: [RESEND PATCH] iio: light: add support for TI's opt3001 light sensor"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]