All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@gmail.com>
To: Phil Reid <preid@electromag.com.au>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
	knaack.h@gmx.de, lars@metafoo.de,
	Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
	linux-iio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iio: core: Improve precision of __iio_format_value for FRACTIONAL values
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:32:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+U=Dso+_dn4mEew5y62nGg8AmEABOCnV9aFgHvQV9WsM0enrA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1548743212-83787-1-git-send-email-preid@electromag.com.au>

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 8:28 AM Phil Reid <preid@electromag.com.au> wrote:
>
> Currently FRACTIONAL values are outputed with 9 digits after the decimal
> place. This is not always sufficient to resolve the raw value with 1 bit.
> Output FRACTIONAL values to 15 decimal places of precision, regardless
> of the number of leading zeros.
>
> Currently for a 2.5V ref with 24 bits of precision the code outputs only
> to 9 decimal places.
>
> Cur: 0.00014901100000000000 * 16777216 = 2499.989733
> New: 0.00014901161193847600 * 16777216 = 2500.000000
> Signed-off-by: Phil Reid <preid@electromag.com.au>
> ---
>
> Notes:
>     Alternatively I could add additonal FRACTIONAL types that select the new
>     behaviour to prevent any possible regressions.
>
>  drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> index a062cfd..bd9da64 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> @@ -571,11 +571,53 @@ int of_iio_read_mount_matrix(const struct device *dev,
>  #endif
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_iio_read_mount_matrix);
>
> +static ssize_t __iio_format_div_prec(char *buf, unsigned int len, s64 x, s32 y)
> +{
> +       unsigned int prec = 0;
> +       unsigned int idx = 0;
> +       s64 d;
> +
> +       if (!len)
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       if (!y)
> +               return snprintf(buf, len, "inf");
> +
> +       if (!x)
> +               return snprintf(buf, len, "0");
> +
> +       if (((x > 0) && (y < 0)) || ((x < 0) && (y > 0))) {
> +               buf[idx++] = '-';
> +               x = x > 0 ? x : -x;
> +               y = y > 0 ? y : -y;
> +       }
> +
> +       d = div64_s64(x, y);
> +       idx += snprintf(buf+idx, len-idx, "%d", (int)d);
> +       x = x - (y * d);
> +       if ((x != 0) && (idx < len-1)) {
> +               buf[idx++] = '.';
> +               x = x * 10;
> +               d = div64_s64(x, y);
> +
> +               while ((idx < len-1) && (prec < 15)) {
> +                       if (d || prec)
> +                               prec++;
> +                       buf[idx++] = '0' + (char)d;
> +                       x = x - (y * d);
> +                       if (!x)
> +                               break;
> +                       x = x * 10;
> +                       d = div64_s64(x, y);
> +               }
> +               buf[idx] = 0;
> +       }
> +       return idx;
> +}
> +
>  static ssize_t __iio_format_value(char *buf, size_t len, unsigned int type,
>                                   int size, const int *vals)
>  {
> -       unsigned long long tmp;
> -       int tmp0, tmp1;
>         bool scale_db = false;
>
>         switch (type) {
> @@ -598,14 +640,9 @@ static ssize_t __iio_format_value(char *buf, size_t len, unsigned int type,
>                 else
>                         return snprintf(buf, len, "%d.%09u", vals[0], vals[1]);
>         case IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL:
> -               tmp = div_s64((s64)vals[0] * 1000000000LL, vals[1]);
> -               tmp1 = vals[1];
> -               tmp0 = (int)div_s64_rem(tmp, 1000000000, &tmp1);
> -               return snprintf(buf, len, "%d.%09u", tmp0, abs(tmp1));
> +               return __iio_format_div_prec(buf, len, vals[0], vals[1]);

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I'm also a bit curious.
If you just bump the numbers here, would it work the same ?

i.e.   10^9 -> 10^15 and "snprintf(buf, len, "%d.%15u", tmp0, abs(tmp1));"

But in any case, what would be interesting now, is to extend the IIO
core logic to provide [somehow] a precision number, default being 9.
This could probably be specified on per-channel basis [somehow],
similar to other channel params.

So, for example in the default case, if you have "uint32_t precision =
9", you would have the same behavior, with something like

      tmp = div_s64((s64)vals[0] * pow_of_10(precision), vals[1]);
      tmp1 = vals[1];
      tmp0 = (int)div_s64_rem(tmp, pow_of_10(precision), &tmp1);
      return snprintf(buf, len, "%d.%" precision "u", tmp0, abs(tmp1));

Obviously, the above code is just pseudo-code, where pow_of_10()
multiplies 10 a "precision" number of times, and the snprintf() would
need a temporary buffer to create a format string, which then would be
used.

Thanks
Alex

>         case IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2:
> -               tmp = shift_right((s64)vals[0] * 1000000000LL, vals[1]);
> -               tmp0 = (int)div_s64_rem(tmp, 1000000000LL, &tmp1);
> -               return snprintf(buf, len, "%d.%09u", tmp0, abs(tmp1));
> +               return __iio_format_div_prec(buf, len, vals[0], 1 << vals[1]);
>         case IIO_VAL_INT_MULTIPLE:
>         {
>                 int i;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>

  reply	other threads:[~2019-01-29  8:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-29  6:26 [PATCH 1/1] iio: core: Improve precision of __iio_format_value for FRACTIONAL values Phil Reid
2019-01-29  8:32 ` Alexandru Ardelean [this message]
2019-01-29  9:11   ` Phil Reid
2019-01-31 13:35     ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-01  5:47       ` Phil Reid
2019-02-01 11:22         ` Jonathan Cameron

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CA+U=Dso+_dn4mEew5y62nGg8AmEABOCnV9aFgHvQV9WsM0enrA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=ardeleanalex@gmail.com \
    --cc=jic23@kernel.org \
    --cc=knaack.h@gmx.de \
    --cc=lars@metafoo.de \
    --cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pmeerw@pmeerw.net \
    --cc=preid@electromag.com.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.