[PATCH] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: add GPIO support

[PATCH] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: add GPIO support

[justinpopo6]

From: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>

The ADS79XX has GPIO pins that can be used. Add support for the GPIO
pins using the GPIO chip framework.

Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c | 166 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 164 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
index 0ad6359..c54706ad 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
 #include <linux/bitops.h>
 #include <linux/device.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
+#include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
@@ -36,10 +37,14 @@
  */
 #define TI_ADS7950_VA_MV_ACPI_DEFAULT	5000
 
+#define TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO	BIT(14)
 #define TI_ADS7950_CR_MANUAL	BIT(12)
 #define TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE	BIT(11)
 #define TI_ADS7950_CR_CHAN(ch)	((ch) << 7)
 #define TI_ADS7950_CR_RANGE_5V	BIT(6)
+#define TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO_DATA	BIT(5)
+#define TI_ADS7950_NUM_GPIOS	4
+#define TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK	GENMASK(TI_ADS7950_NUM_GPIOS - 1, 0)
 
 #define TI_ADS7950_MAX_CHAN	16
 
@@ -56,11 +61,17 @@ struct ti_ads7950_state {
 	struct spi_message	ring_msg;
 	struct spi_message	scan_single_msg;
 
+	struct iio_dev		*indio_dev;
+	struct gpio_chip	*chip;
+
 	struct regulator	*reg;
 	unsigned int		vref_mv;
 
 	unsigned int		settings;
 
+	unsigned int		gpio_direction_bitmask;
+	unsigned int		gpio_signal_bitmask;
+
 	/*
 	 * DMA (thus cache coherency maintenance) requires the
 	 * transfer buffers to live in their own cache lines.
@@ -248,7 +259,8 @@ static int ti_ads7950_update_scan_mode(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
 
 	len = 0;
 	for_each_set_bit(i, active_scan_mask, indio_dev->num_channels) {
-		cmd = TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE | TI_ADS7950_CR_CHAN(i) | st->settings;
+		cmd = TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE | TI_ADS7950_CR_CHAN(i) | st->settings
+		      | (st->gpio_signal_bitmask & TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK);
 		st->tx_buf[len++] = cmd;
 	}
 
@@ -288,7 +300,8 @@ static int ti_ads7950_scan_direct(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, unsigned int ch)
 
 	mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
 
-	cmd = TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE | TI_ADS7950_CR_CHAN(ch) | st->settings;
+	cmd = TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE | TI_ADS7950_CR_CHAN(ch) | st->settings
+	      | (st->gpio_signal_bitmask & TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK);
 	st->single_tx = cmd;
 
 	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
@@ -362,10 +375,149 @@ static const struct iio_info ti_ads7950_info = {
 	.update_scan_mode	= ti_ads7950_update_scan_mode,
 };
 
+static void ti_ads7950_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
+			   int value)
+{
+	struct ti_ads7950_state *st = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
+
+	mutex_lock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
+
+	if (value)
+		st->gpio_signal_bitmask |= BIT(offset);
+	else
+		st->gpio_signal_bitmask &= ~BIT(offset);
+
+	st->single_tx = cpu_to_be16(TI_ADS7950_CR_MANUAL | TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE |
+			(st->gpio_signal_bitmask & TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK));
+	spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
+
+	mutex_unlock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
+}
+
+static int ti_ads7950_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
+{
+	struct ti_ads7950_state *st = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
+	int ret;
+
+	mutex_lock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
+
+	/* If set as output, return the output */
+	if (st->gpio_direction_bitmask & BIT(offset)) {
+		ret = st->gpio_signal_bitmask & BIT(offset);
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	st->single_tx = cpu_to_be16(TI_ADS7950_CR_MANUAL | TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE |
+				    TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO_DATA);
+	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
+	if (ret)
+		goto out;
+
+	ret = ((st->single_rx >> 12) & BIT(offset)) ? 1 : 0;
+
+out:
+	mutex_unlock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static int ti_ads7950_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip,
+				    unsigned int offset)
+{
+	struct ti_ads7950_state *st = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
+
+	return !(st->gpio_direction_bitmask & BIT(offset));
+}
+
+static int _ti_ads7950_set_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip, int offset,
+				     int input)
+{
+	struct ti_ads7950_state *st = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
+	int ret = 0;
+
+	mutex_lock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
+
+	if (input && (st->gpio_direction_bitmask & BIT(offset)))
+		st->gpio_direction_bitmask &= ~BIT(offset);
+	else if (!input && !(st->gpio_direction_bitmask & BIT(offset)))
+		st->gpio_direction_bitmask |= BIT(offset);
+	else
+		goto out;
+
+
+	st->single_tx = cpu_to_be16(TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO |
+				    (st->gpio_direction_bitmask &
+				    TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK));
+	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
+
+out:
+	mutex_unlock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static int ti_ads7950_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip,
+				      unsigned int offset)
+{
+	return _ti_ads7950_set_direction(chip, offset, 1);
+}
+
+static int ti_ads7950_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip,
+				       unsigned int offset, int value)
+{
+	ti_ads7950_set(chip, offset, value);
+
+	return _ti_ads7950_set_direction(chip, offset, 0);
+}
+
+static int ti_ads7950_init_gpio(struct ti_ads7950_state *st)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	/* Initialize GPIO */
+	mutex_lock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
+
+	/* Default to GPIO input */
+	st->gpio_direction_bitmask = 0x0;
+	st->single_tx = cpu_to_be16(TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO |
+				    (st->gpio_direction_bitmask &
+				    TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK));
+	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
+	mutex_unlock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	/* Default to signal low */
+	st->gpio_signal_bitmask = 0x0;
+	st->single_tx = cpu_to_be16(TI_ADS7950_CR_MANUAL |
+				    TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE |
+				    (st->gpio_signal_bitmask &
+				    TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK));
+	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
+	mutex_unlock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	/* Add GPIO chip */
+	st->chip->label = dev_name(&st->spi->dev);
+	st->chip->parent = &st->spi->dev;
+	st->chip->owner = THIS_MODULE;
+	st->chip->base = -1;
+	st->chip->ngpio = TI_ADS7950_NUM_GPIOS;
+	st->chip->get_direction = ti_ads7950_get_direction;
+	st->chip->direction_input = ti_ads7950_direction_input;
+	st->chip->direction_output = ti_ads7950_direction_output;
+	st->chip->get = ti_ads7950_get;
+	st->chip->set = ti_ads7950_set;
+
+	return gpiochip_add_data(st->chip, st);
+}
+
 static int ti_ads7950_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
 {
 	struct ti_ads7950_state *st;
 	struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
+	struct gpio_chip *chip;
 	const struct ti_ads7950_chip_info *info;
 	int ret;
 
@@ -381,6 +533,10 @@ static int ti_ads7950_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
 	if (!indio_dev)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
+	chip = devm_kzalloc(&spi->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!chip)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
 	st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
 
 	spi_set_drvdata(spi, indio_dev);
@@ -396,6 +552,8 @@ static int ti_ads7950_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
 	indio_dev->channels = info->channels;
 	indio_dev->num_channels = info->num_channels;
 	indio_dev->info = &ti_ads7950_info;
+	st->indio_dev = indio_dev;
+	st->chip = chip;
 
 	/* build spi ring message */
 	spi_message_init(&st->ring_msg);
@@ -457,6 +615,10 @@ static int ti_ads7950_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
 		goto error_cleanup_ring;
 	}
 
+	ret = ti_ads7950_init_gpio(st);
+	if (ret)
+		dev_warn(&spi->dev, "Unable to initialize GPIOs\n");
+
 	return 0;
 
 error_cleanup_ring:
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: add GPIO support

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Fri,  8 Feb 2019 11:24:16 -0800
justinpopo6@gmail.com wrote:

> From: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
> 
> The ADS79XX has GPIO pins that can be used. Add support for the GPIO
> pins using the GPIO chip framework.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>

Hi Justin,

Unfortunately the existing driver is making incorrect use of
the indio_dev->mlock mutex.  That used to get abused a lot before
we clamped down on it being for only one purpose, protection of
the 'mode' of the iio device. It's about stopping anything interfering
with buffered captures by talking to the device in a way that breaks
them.

I'm not sure if the original driver was trying to use it for this
purpose and protecting it's buffers.  Even if so, there should be
an additional local lock to cover those chip specific elements.
Any use of mlock should be through the iio_device_claim_direct_mode
function etc.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> ---
>  drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c | 166 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 164 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
> index 0ad6359..c54706ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #include <linux/bitops.h>
>  #include <linux/device.h>
>  #include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
> @@ -36,10 +37,14 @@
>   */
>  #define TI_ADS7950_VA_MV_ACPI_DEFAULT	5000
>  
> +#define TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO	BIT(14)
>  #define TI_ADS7950_CR_MANUAL	BIT(12)
>  #define TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE	BIT(11)
>  #define TI_ADS7950_CR_CHAN(ch)	((ch) << 7)
>  #define TI_ADS7950_CR_RANGE_5V	BIT(6)
> +#define TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO_DATA	BIT(5)
> +#define TI_ADS7950_NUM_GPIOS	4
> +#define TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK	GENMASK(TI_ADS7950_NUM_GPIOS - 1, 0)
>  
>  #define TI_ADS7950_MAX_CHAN	16
>  
> @@ -56,11 +61,17 @@ struct ti_ads7950_state {
>  	struct spi_message	ring_msg;
>  	struct spi_message	scan_single_msg;
>  
> +	struct iio_dev		*indio_dev;
> +	struct gpio_chip	*chip;
> +
>  	struct regulator	*reg;
>  	unsigned int		vref_mv;
>  
>  	unsigned int		settings;
>  
> +	unsigned int		gpio_direction_bitmask;
> +	unsigned int		gpio_signal_bitmask;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * DMA (thus cache coherency maintenance) requires the
>  	 * transfer buffers to live in their own cache lines.
> @@ -248,7 +259,8 @@ static int ti_ads7950_update_scan_mode(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>  
>  	len = 0;
>  	for_each_set_bit(i, active_scan_mask, indio_dev->num_channels) {
> -		cmd = TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE | TI_ADS7950_CR_CHAN(i) | st->settings;
> +		cmd = TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE | TI_ADS7950_CR_CHAN(i) | st->settings
> +		      | (st->gpio_signal_bitmask & TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK);
>  		st->tx_buf[len++] = cmd;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -288,7 +300,8 @@ static int ti_ads7950_scan_direct(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, unsigned int ch)
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>  
> -	cmd = TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE | TI_ADS7950_CR_CHAN(ch) | st->settings;
> +	cmd = TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE | TI_ADS7950_CR_CHAN(ch) | st->settings
> +	      | (st->gpio_signal_bitmask & TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK);
>  	st->single_tx = cmd;
>  
>  	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
> @@ -362,10 +375,149 @@ static const struct iio_info ti_ads7950_info = {
>  	.update_scan_mode	= ti_ads7950_update_scan_mode,
>  };
>  
> +static void ti_ads7950_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
> +			   int value)
> +{
> +	struct ti_ads7950_state *st = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
> +
> +	if (value)
> +		st->gpio_signal_bitmask |= BIT(offset);
> +	else
> +		st->gpio_signal_bitmask &= ~BIT(offset);
> +
> +	st->single_tx = cpu_to_be16(TI_ADS7950_CR_MANUAL | TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE |
> +			(st->gpio_signal_bitmask & TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK));
> +	spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
> +}
> +
> +static int ti_ads7950_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
> +{
> +	struct ti_ads7950_state *st = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
> +
> +	/* If set as output, return the output */
> +	if (st->gpio_direction_bitmask & BIT(offset)) {
> +		ret = st->gpio_signal_bitmask & BIT(offset);
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	st->single_tx = cpu_to_be16(TI_ADS7950_CR_MANUAL | TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE |
> +				    TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO_DATA);
> +	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	ret = ((st->single_rx >> 12) & BIT(offset)) ? 1 : 0;
> +
> +out:
> +	mutex_unlock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int ti_ads7950_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> +				    unsigned int offset)
> +{
> +	struct ti_ads7950_state *st = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> +
> +	return !(st->gpio_direction_bitmask & BIT(offset));
> +}
> +
> +static int _ti_ads7950_set_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip, int offset,
> +				     int input)
> +{
> +	struct ti_ads7950_state *st = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
> +
> +	if (input && (st->gpio_direction_bitmask & BIT(offset)))
> +		st->gpio_direction_bitmask &= ~BIT(offset);
> +	else if (!input && !(st->gpio_direction_bitmask & BIT(offset)))
> +		st->gpio_direction_bitmask |= BIT(offset);
> +	else
> +		goto out;
> +
> +
> +	st->single_tx = cpu_to_be16(TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO |
> +				    (st->gpio_direction_bitmask &
> +				    TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK));
> +	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
> +
> +out:
> +	mutex_unlock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int ti_ads7950_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> +				      unsigned int offset)
> +{
> +	return _ti_ads7950_set_direction(chip, offset, 1);
> +}
> +
> +static int ti_ads7950_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> +				       unsigned int offset, int value)
> +{
> +	ti_ads7950_set(chip, offset, value);
> +
> +	return _ti_ads7950_set_direction(chip, offset, 0);
> +}
> +
> +static int ti_ads7950_init_gpio(struct ti_ads7950_state *st)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	/* Initialize GPIO */
> +	mutex_lock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
> +
> +	/* Default to GPIO input */
> +	st->gpio_direction_bitmask = 0x0;
> +	st->single_tx = cpu_to_be16(TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO |
> +				    (st->gpio_direction_bitmask &
> +				    TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK));
> +	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
> +	mutex_unlock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);

Nope.  This is a state lock used to protect against transitions between
different modes of the IIO device (buffered vs polled), it
isn't suitable for general use.

The driver should be modified to handle that correctly.
We have iio_claim_direct_mode etc that deal with the case
where a device can't do certain operations whilst in buffered
mode.  Note it can fail and should.

Seems there are more drivers still doing this than I thought.
If anyone is bored and wants to clean them out, that would be
most appreciated!

If you need locking to protect a local buffer or the device
state, define a new lock to do it with clearly documented
scope.

> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	/* Default to signal low */
> +	st->gpio_signal_bitmask = 0x0;
> +	st->single_tx = cpu_to_be16(TI_ADS7950_CR_MANUAL |
> +				    TI_ADS7950_CR_WRITE |
> +				    (st->gpio_signal_bitmask &
> +				    TI_ADS7950_GPIO_MASK));
> +	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->scan_single_msg);
> +	mutex_unlock(&st->indio_dev->mlock);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	/* Add GPIO chip */
> +	st->chip->label = dev_name(&st->spi->dev);
> +	st->chip->parent = &st->spi->dev;
> +	st->chip->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> +	st->chip->base = -1;
> +	st->chip->ngpio = TI_ADS7950_NUM_GPIOS;
> +	st->chip->get_direction = ti_ads7950_get_direction;
> +	st->chip->direction_input = ti_ads7950_direction_input;
> +	st->chip->direction_output = ti_ads7950_direction_output;
> +	st->chip->get = ti_ads7950_get;
> +	st->chip->set = ti_ads7950_set;
> +
> +	return gpiochip_add_data(st->chip, st);
> +}
> +
>  static int ti_ads7950_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  {
>  	struct ti_ads7950_state *st;
>  	struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
> +	struct gpio_chip *chip;
>  	const struct ti_ads7950_chip_info *info;
>  	int ret;
>  
> @@ -381,6 +533,10 @@ static int ti_ads7950_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  	if (!indio_dev)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> +	chip = devm_kzalloc(&spi->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!chip)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +

What stops us putting the chip structure inside the existing
info structure?  That avoids the need to separately allocate
memory and to set the pointer.  A cleaner option all round.

>  	st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>  
>  	spi_set_drvdata(spi, indio_dev);
> @@ -396,6 +552,8 @@ static int ti_ads7950_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  	indio_dev->channels = info->channels;
>  	indio_dev->num_channels = info->num_channels;
>  	indio_dev->info = &ti_ads7950_info;
> +	st->indio_dev = indio_dev;

Hmm. As a general rule I'm against things having pointers to the structure
that contains them as it usual means something is inconsistent in the
software architecture.

From the above, looks like this is about accessing mlock. The driver
shouldn't be doing that directly at all, so a precursor to this
patch cleaning that up would be great.

> +	st->chip = chip;
>  
>  	/* build spi ring message */
>  	spi_message_init(&st->ring_msg);
> @@ -457,6 +615,10 @@ static int ti_ads7950_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  		goto error_cleanup_ring;
>  	}
>  
> +	ret = ti_ads7950_init_gpio(st);
> +	if (ret)
> +		dev_warn(&spi->dev, "Unable to initialize GPIOs\n");
Why are we not treating this as an error?  I can't see any
obvious reason to make that choice.

> +
>  	return 0;
>  
>  error_cleanup_ring:

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: add GPIO support

[David Lechner]

On 2/9/19 11:00 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Nope.  This is a state lock used to protect against transitions between
> different modes of the IIO device (buffered vs polled), it
> isn't suitable for general use.
> 
> The driver should be modified to handle that correctly.
> We have iio_claim_direct_mode etc that deal with the case
> where a device can't do certain operations whilst in buffered
> mode.  Note it can fail and should.
> 
> Seems there are more drivers still doing this than I thought.
> If anyone is bored and wants to clean them out, that would be
> most appreciated!
> 
> If you need locking to protect a local buffer or the device
> state, define a new lock to do it with clearly documented
> scope.

Just as a reminder, there is a use case for this particular
chip that requires buffered mode and direct mode at the same
time.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10539021/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10527757/

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: add GPIO support

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 12:56:11 -0600
David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:

> On 2/9/19 11:00 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > Nope.  This is a state lock used to protect against transitions between
> > different modes of the IIO device (buffered vs polled), it
> > isn't suitable for general use.
> > 
> > The driver should be modified to handle that correctly.
> > We have iio_claim_direct_mode etc that deal with the case
> > where a device can't do certain operations whilst in buffered
> > mode.  Note it can fail and should.
> > 
> > Seems there are more drivers still doing this than I thought.
> > If anyone is bored and wants to clean them out, that would be
> > most appreciated!
> > 
> > If you need locking to protect a local buffer or the device
> > state, define a new lock to do it with clearly documented
> > scope.  
> 
> Just as a reminder, there is a use case for this particular
> chip that requires buffered mode and direct mode at the same
> time.
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10539021/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10527757/

Thanks, I had indeed forgotten that entirely.
So it should have a local lock and not take mlock explicitly at all.

Jonathan

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: add GPIO support

[Justin Chen]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:06 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 12:56:11 -0600
> David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/9/19 11:00 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > Nope.  This is a state lock used to protect against transitions between
> > > different modes of the IIO device (buffered vs polled), it
> > > isn't suitable for general use.
> > >
> > > The driver should be modified to handle that correctly.
> > > We have iio_claim_direct_mode etc that deal with the case
> > > where a device can't do certain operations whilst in buffered
> > > mode.  Note it can fail and should.
> > >
> > > Seems there are more drivers still doing this than I thought.
> > > If anyone is bored and wants to clean them out, that would be
> > > most appreciated!
> > >
> > > If you need locking to protect a local buffer or the device
> > > state, define a new lock to do it with clearly documented
> > > scope.
> >
> > Just as a reminder, there is a use case for this particular
> > chip that requires buffered mode and direct mode at the same
> > time.
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10539021/
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10527757/
>
> Thanks, I had indeed forgotten that entirely.
> So it should have a local lock and not take mlock explicitly at all.
>
Thanks for all the feedback.
So If I am understanding this correctly. I should create a local lock
to synchronize three different type of transactions (buffered, direct,
gpio).
I do not want to use iio_claim_direct_mode because that doesn't allow
simultaneous use of buffered mode and direct mode, which is necessary
for this driver because of the above mentioned patch.

Justin
> Jonathan

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: add GPIO support

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:17:37 -0800
Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:06 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 12:56:11 -0600
> > David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > On 2/9/19 11:00 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:  
> > > > Nope.  This is a state lock used to protect against transitions between
> > > > different modes of the IIO device (buffered vs polled), it
> > > > isn't suitable for general use.
> > > >
> > > > The driver should be modified to handle that correctly.
> > > > We have iio_claim_direct_mode etc that deal with the case
> > > > where a device can't do certain operations whilst in buffered
> > > > mode.  Note it can fail and should.
> > > >
> > > > Seems there are more drivers still doing this than I thought.
> > > > If anyone is bored and wants to clean them out, that would be
> > > > most appreciated!
> > > >
> > > > If you need locking to protect a local buffer or the device
> > > > state, define a new lock to do it with clearly documented
> > > > scope.  
> > >
> > > Just as a reminder, there is a use case for this particular
> > > chip that requires buffered mode and direct mode at the same
> > > time.
> > >
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10539021/
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10527757/  
> >
> > Thanks, I had indeed forgotten that entirely.
> > So it should have a local lock and not take mlock explicitly at all.
> >  
> Thanks for all the feedback.
> So If I am understanding this correctly. I should create a local lock
> to synchronize three different type of transactions (buffered, direct,
> gpio).
> I do not want to use iio_claim_direct_mode because that doesn't allow
> simultaneous use of buffered mode and direct mode, which is necessary
> for this driver because of the above mentioned patch.
No, you should create a local lock to do just one thing. Protect
the buffers used in those transactions.  There is no need
to protect anything else explicitly.

On some devices there are multiple transaction writes, but I don't recall
that being the case here.

Jonathan

> 
> Justin
> > Jonathan  

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: add GPIO support

[Linus Walleij]

Hi Justin,

thanks for your patch!

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 8:25 PM <justinpopo6@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
>
> The ADS79XX has GPIO pins that can be used. Add support for the GPIO
> pins using the GPIO chip framework.
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
(...)

> @@ -56,11 +61,17 @@ struct ti_ads7950_state {
>         struct spi_message      ring_msg;
>         struct spi_message      scan_single_msg;
>
> +       struct iio_dev          *indio_dev;
> +       struct gpio_chip        *chip;

Why use a pointer here? Correct me if wrong by a struct ti_ads7950_state is
always allocated for each instance of the hardware right?
So just struct gpio_chip chip; should be fine, then just fill in that
struct.

> +       /* Add GPIO chip */
> +       st->chip->label = dev_name(&st->spi->dev);

So it would be st->chip.label = ... etc.

> +       chip = devm_kzalloc(&spi->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!chip)
> +               return -ENOMEM;

And no need to do this.

Apart from that it looks OK to me, but there are some locking comments
I see.

Yours,
Linus Walleij