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 > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, ®, 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