RFC on IIO AD7292 driver GSoC proposal

RFC on IIO AD7292 driver GSoC proposal

[Marcelo Schmitt]

Hello.

My name is Marcelo Schmitt, I'm a computer science student learning
how to contribute to the Linux Kernel in the IIO subsystem. I was told
by a friend that Google was encouraging people who contribute to open
source projects through the GSoC program and that there was a project
for developing a new IIO driver. I intend to continue contributing to
IIO and, if possible, engage in this GSoC project. As suggested by
GSoC organization, I shared a draft proposal for the project here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vOegyoC5b90jwLe1PBz4IbKGXaXMozi-RldS5OAZz4Y.
It would be really great if anyone could comment on it.
Sorry for sending it so close to dead line date.

Thanks in advance,

Marcelo

Re: RFC on IIO AD7292 driver GSoC proposal

[Alexandru Ardelean]

On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 10:46 PM Marcelo Schmitt
<marcelo.schmitt1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> My name is Marcelo Schmitt, I'm a computer science student learning
> how to contribute to the Linux Kernel in the IIO subsystem. I was told
> by a friend that Google was encouraging people who contribute to open
> source projects through the GSoC program and that there was a project
> for developing a new IIO driver. I intend to continue contributing to
> IIO and, if possible, engage in this GSoC project. As suggested by
> GSoC organization, I shared a draft proposal for the project here
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vOegyoC5b90jwLe1PBz4IbKGXaXMozi-RldS5OAZz4Y.
> It would be really great if anyone could comment on it.
> Sorry for sending it so close to dead line date.
>

Overall doc looks good.
One note about the steps: ideally the AD7292 driver should not be put
into staging, it's a new driver.
Hence there is no reason to have a "move out-of-staging" step.

The current IIO drivers in staging are there, because initially the
IIO framework was done in staging, and some drivers were not updated
because of time/priorities.

> Thanks in advance,
>
> Marcelo

Re: RFC on IIO AD7292 driver GSoC proposal

[Crt Mori]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 21:45, Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> My name is Marcelo Schmitt, I'm a computer science student learning
> how to contribute to the Linux Kernel in the IIO subsystem. I was told
> by a friend that Google was encouraging people who contribute to open
> source projects through the GSoC program and that there was a project
> for developing a new IIO driver. I intend to continue contributing to
> IIO and, if possible, engage in this GSoC project. As suggested by
> GSoC organization, I shared a draft proposal for the project here
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vOegyoC5b90jwLe1PBz4IbKGXaXMozi-RldS5OAZz4Y.
> It would be really great if anyone could comment on it.
> Sorry for sending it so close to dead line date.
>

Hello,
Nice read. I am a bit wondering why you have Arduino mentioned for
couple of tests - I am assuming because its easier to write raw SPI
with Arduino than what is described in Documentation/spi/spidev ?
What you have in week 26 (Develop initial documentation), you will
probably need to send with the first patches of week 23 and 24.

Best regards,
Crt

> Thanks in advance,
>
> Marcelo

Re: RFC on IIO AD7292 driver GSoC proposal

[Marcelo Schmitt]

Hi,

On 04/08, Crt Mori wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 21:45, Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > My name is Marcelo Schmitt, I'm a computer science student learning
> > how to contribute to the Linux Kernel in the IIO subsystem. I was told
> > by a friend that Google was encouraging people who contribute to open
> > source projects through the GSoC program and that there was a project
> > for developing a new IIO driver. I intend to continue contributing to
> > IIO and, if possible, engage in this GSoC project. As suggested by
> > GSoC organization, I shared a draft proposal for the project here
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vOegyoC5b90jwLe1PBz4IbKGXaXMozi-RldS5OAZz4Y.
> > It would be really great if anyone could comment on it.
> > Sorry for sending it so close to dead line date.
> >
> 
> Hello,
> Nice read. I am a bit wondering why you have Arduino mentioned for
> couple of tests - I am assuming because its easier to write raw SPI
> with Arduino than what is described in Documentation/spi/spidev ?
> What you have in week 26 (Develop initial documentation), you will
> probably need to send with the first patches of week 23 and 24.

Thanks Mori.
You're right, I'll probably have to start defining ABI when defining
device's external attributes for temperature. Devicetree will probably
be worth carring for after setting voltage regulator for the device.
Changed proposal accordingly.

> 
> Best regards,
> Crt
> 
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Marcelo

Re: RFC on IIO AD7292 driver GSoC proposal

[Marcelo Schmitt]

On 04/08, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 10:46 PM Marcelo Schmitt
> <marcelo.schmitt1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > My name is Marcelo Schmitt, I'm a computer science student learning
> > how to contribute to the Linux Kernel in the IIO subsystem. I was told
> > by a friend that Google was encouraging people who contribute to open
> > source projects through the GSoC program and that there was a project
> > for developing a new IIO driver. I intend to continue contributing to
> > IIO and, if possible, engage in this GSoC project. As suggested by
> > GSoC organization, I shared a draft proposal for the project here
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vOegyoC5b90jwLe1PBz4IbKGXaXMozi-RldS5OAZz4Y.
> > It would be really great if anyone could comment on it.
> > Sorry for sending it so close to dead line date.
> >
> 
> Overall doc looks good.
> One note about the steps: ideally the AD7292 driver should not be put
> into staging, it's a new driver.
> Hence there is no reason to have a "move out-of-staging" step.
> 
> The current IIO drivers in staging are there, because initially the
> IIO framework was done in staging, and some drivers were not updated
> because of time/priorities.

Thanks Alexandru.
OK, understood. But where one should commit code for a driver in
development as will be the case for AD7292? iio main tree will
probably not be a good idea. Does any development branch exists?
testing2, compiletest?

> 
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Marcelo

Re: RFC on IIO AD7292 driver GSoC proposal

[Alexandru Ardelean]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 3:17 PM Marcelo Schmitt
<marcelo.schmitt1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/08, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 10:46 PM Marcelo Schmitt
> > <marcelo.schmitt1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > My name is Marcelo Schmitt, I'm a computer science student learning
> > > how to contribute to the Linux Kernel in the IIO subsystem. I was told
> > > by a friend that Google was encouraging people who contribute to open
> > > source projects through the GSoC program and that there was a project
> > > for developing a new IIO driver. I intend to continue contributing to
> > > IIO and, if possible, engage in this GSoC project. As suggested by
> > > GSoC organization, I shared a draft proposal for the project here
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vOegyoC5b90jwLe1PBz4IbKGXaXMozi-RldS5OAZz4Y.
> > > It would be really great if anyone could comment on it.
> > > Sorry for sending it so close to dead line date.
> > >
> >
> > Overall doc looks good.
> > One note about the steps: ideally the AD7292 driver should not be put
> > into staging, it's a new driver.
> > Hence there is no reason to have a "move out-of-staging" step.
> >
> > The current IIO drivers in staging are there, because initially the
> > IIO framework was done in staging, and some drivers were not updated
> > because of time/priorities.
>
> Thanks Alexandru.
> OK, understood. But where one should commit code for a driver in
> development as will be the case for AD7292? iio main tree will
> probably not be a good idea. Does any development branch exists?
> testing2, compiletest?

I guess I'm not very familiar with how GSoC works.
I guess work can be done in any public place.
And then the final parts can be submitted to the IIO list as standard.

Regarding the DT bindings, I'm afraid you will have to make them in YAML format.
Just be aware of this.

This is a recent change to DT bindings.
I'm also trying out this new YAML thingi [for personal curiosity].
They don't look too difficult, but they are a bit weird. But I've
always found YAML a bit weird.

>
> >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > Marcelo

Re: RFC on IIO AD7292 driver GSoC proposal

[Daniel Baluta]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 3:17 PM Marcelo Schmitt
<marcelo.schmitt1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/08, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 10:46 PM Marcelo Schmitt
> > <marcelo.schmitt1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > My name is Marcelo Schmitt, I'm a computer science student learning
> > > how to contribute to the Linux Kernel in the IIO subsystem. I was told
> > > by a friend that Google was encouraging people who contribute to open
> > > source projects through the GSoC program and that there was a project
> > > for developing a new IIO driver. I intend to continue contributing to
> > > IIO and, if possible, engage in this GSoC project. As suggested by
> > > GSoC organization, I shared a draft proposal for the project here
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vOegyoC5b90jwLe1PBz4IbKGXaXMozi-RldS5OAZz4Y.
> > > It would be really great if anyone could comment on it.
> > > Sorry for sending it so close to dead line date.
> > >
> >
> > Overall doc looks good.
> > One note about the steps: ideally the AD7292 driver should not be put
> > into staging, it's a new driver.
> > Hence there is no reason to have a "move out-of-staging" step.
> >
> > The current IIO drivers in staging are there, because initially the
> > IIO framework was done in staging, and some drivers were not updated
> > because of time/priorities.
>
> Thanks Alexandru.
> OK, understood. But where one should commit code for a driver in
> development as will be the case for AD7292? iio main tree will
> probably not be a good idea. Does any development branch exists?
> testing2, compiletest?

Hi Marcello,

You wlll send the code for review to linux-iio list and when review done
Jonathan will merge it in his linux-iio tree then it will send it upstream
to Greg then Greg will send it to Linus.

Your code should be placed inside drivers/iio directory.

HTH,
Daniel.