Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: afe: unit-converter: add support for adi,lt6106

["Andrew F. Davis" <afd@ti.com>]

On 04/12/2018 05:31 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2018-04-12 17:35, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>> On 04/12/2018 09:29 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-11 18:13, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2018 10:51 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>>>> On 04/11/2018 05:43 PM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/11/2018 09:15 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>>> This is a current sense amplifier from Analog Devices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  drivers/iio/afe/Kconfig              |  3 +-
>>>>>>>  drivers/iio/afe/iio-unit-converter.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/afe/Kconfig b/drivers/iio/afe/Kconfig
>>>>>>> index 642ce4eb12a6..0e10fe8f459a 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/afe/Kconfig
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/afe/Kconfig
>>>>>>> @@ -10,7 +10,8 @@ config IIO_UNIT_CONVERTER
>>>>>>>  	depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST
>>>>>>>  	help
>>>>>>>  	  Say yes here to build support for the IIO unit converter
>>>>>>> -	  that handles voltage dividers and current sense shunts.
>>>>>>> +	  that handles voltage dividers, current sense shunts and
>>>>>>> +	  the LT6106 Current Sense Amplifier from Analog Devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could work better to split these out into separate drivers. Maybe a
>>>>>> iio-shunt-resistor.c that does just voltage->current with the
>>>>>> appropriate scaling. Then make a a separate lt6106.c.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we need a separate driver here. There are tons of circuits
>>>>> that all work the same way and all require the same properties. If we'd add
>>>>> a driver for each of them we'd get buried in boilerplate code.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough, then it should at least be renamed to something generic
>>>> like current-sense-amplifier, as you said lots of circuits do this, not
>>>> just lt6106s. We will have then have support for:
>>>>
>>>> current-sense-amplifier
>>>> current-sense-shunt
>>>> voltage-divider
>>>
>>> For the compatible "current-sense-amplifier", I would advocate the
>>> properties...
>>>
>>>  sense-resistor-micro-ohms
>>>  sense-gain
>>>
>>> (or something close to that)
>>>
>>> ...and not input-resistor-ohms and output-resistor-ohms which are way
>>> more particular to the LT6106.
>>>
>>> But as I said in the cover letter, I didn't go with sense-gain since I
>>> thought I would end up with requests for non-integer gains. There is
>>> yet to be a comment on the non-integer gain problem, and before there
>>> is a path forward for that case, I'm reluctant.
>>>
>>
>> Why not similar to what you had before with the resistor:
>>
>> sense-gain-multiplier
>> sense-gain-divider
>>
>> if either are missing assume they are 1.
> 
> Hmm, how about sense-gain for the normal integer case, and then divide
> by sense-attenuation if needed? I.e. exactly the same functionality as
> you describe, just different names.
> 

I like these names, but I think gain/attenuation sound very analog and I
would be tempted to assume they are floating point numbers or the units
are logarithmic (dB).

To prevent any more needless bike-shedding on my part I'd like to say
either yours, mine, or Lars-Peter's suggestion all work for me.

>>>> compatibles in this driver called "unit-converter" which is still a
>>>> misnomer IMHO.
>>>
>>> I don't remember you having presented your preference, and I think
>>> that goes against the established bike-shedding protocol?
>>>
>>
>> True, how about "current-sense-from-voltage" ?
> 
> Doesn't cover "voltage-divider" (and we don't need separate drivers
> doing the exact same calculations, that's a maintenance nightmare).
> 


The driver name doesn't have to cover every use, just more than the
other name.


> Cheers,
> Peter
>