Re: [PATCH v9 00/14] iio: afe: add temperature rescaling support

[Liam Beguin <liambeguin@gmail.com>]

Hi Peter,

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:53:44AM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi Liam!
> 
> On 2021-11-15 04:43, Liam Beguin wrote:
> > Hi Jonathan, Peter,
> > 
> > Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I got caught up on other
> > work and wasn't able to dedicate time to this earlier. Hopefully, this
> > time around, I'll be able to get this to the finish line :-)
> > 
> > I left out IIO_VAL_INT overflows for now, so that I can focus on getting
> > the rest of these changes pulled in, but I don't mind adding a patch for
> > that later on.
> > 
> > This series focuses on adding temperature rescaling support to the IIO
> > Analog Front End (AFE) driver.
> > 
> > The first few patches address minor bugs in IIO inkernel functions, and
> > prepare the AFE driver for the additional features.
> > 
> > The main changes to the AFE driver include an initial Kunit test suite,
> > support for IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_{NANO,MICRO} scales, and support for RTDs
> > and temperature transducer sensors.
> > 
> > Thanks for your time,
> 
> And thanks for yours!
> 
> > Liam
> > 
> > Changes since v8:
> > - reword comment
> > - fix erroneous 64-bit division
> > - optimize and use 32-bit divisions when values are know to not overflow
> > - keep IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL scale when possible, if not default to fixed
> >   point
> 
> This is not what is going on. Patch 9/14 will convert all fractional
> scales to fixed point. But I would really like if you in the "reduce
> risk of integer overflow" patch (8/14) would hold true to the above
> and keep the fractional scale when possible and only fall back to
> the less precise fractional-log case if any of the multiplications
> needed for an exact fractional scale causes overflow.

Thanks for looking at these patches again.

> The v8 discussion concluded that this was a valid approach, right?

Yes, I remember you saying that you'd be more comfortable keeping the
IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL.

> I know you also said that the core exposes the scale with nano
> precision in sysfs anyway, but that is not true for in-kernel
> consumers. They have an easier time reading the "real" scale value
> compared to going via the string representation of fixed point
> returned from iio_format_value. At least the rescaler itself does so,
> which means that chaining rescalers might suffer needless accuracy
> degradation.

Agreed, that makes total sense.

If I'm not mistaken, the first condition in the case, if (!rem), will
return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL if the division is exact, keeping all the
precision. No?

> So, please add the overflow fallback thingy right away, it would make
> me feel much better.
> 
> > - add test cases
> > - use nano precision in test cases
> > - simplify offset calculation in rtd_props()
> > 
> > Changes since v7:
> > - drop gcd() logic in rescale_process_scale()
> > - use div_s64() instead of do_div() for signed 64-bit divisions
> > - combine IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL and IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2 scale cases
> > - switch to INT_PLUS_NANO when accuracy is lost with FRACTIONAL scales
> > - rework test logic to allow for small relative error
> > - rename test variables to align error output messages
> > 
> > Changes since v6:
> > - rework IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_{NANO,MICRO} based on Peter's suggestion
> > - combine IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_{NANO,MICRO} cases
> > - add test cases for negative IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_{NANO,MICRO} corner cases
> > - force use of positive integers with gcd()
> > - reduce risk of integer overflow in IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2
> > - fix duplicate symbol build error
> > - apply Reviewed-by
> > 
> > Changes since v5:
> > - add include/linux/iio/afe/rescale.h
> > - expose functions use to process scale and offset
> > - add basic iio-rescale kunit test cases
> > - fix integer overflow case
> > - improve precision for IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2
> > 
> > Changes since v4:
> > - only use gcd() when necessary in overflow mitigation
> > - fix INT_PLUS_{MICRO,NANO} support
> > - apply Reviewed-by
> > - fix temperature-transducer bindings
> > 
> > Changes since v3:
> > - drop unnecessary fallthrough statements
> > - drop redundant local variables in some calculations
> > - fix s64 divisions on 32bit platforms by using do_div
> > - add comment describing iio-rescaler offset calculation
> > - drop unnecessary MAINTAINERS entry
> > 
> > Changes since v2:
> > - don't break implicit offset truncations
> > - make a best effort to get a valid value for fractional types
> > - drop return value change in iio_convert_raw_to_processed_unlocked()
> > - don't rely on processed value for offset calculation
> > - add INT_PLUS_{MICRO,NANO} support in iio-rescale
> > - revert generic implementation in favor of temperature-sense-rtd and
> >   temperature-transducer
> > - add separate section to MAINTAINERS file
> > 
> > Changes since v1:
> > - rebase on latest iio `testing` branch
> > - also apply consumer scale on integer channel scale types
> > - don't break implicit truncation in processed channel offset
> >   calculation
> > - drop temperature AFE flavors in favor of a simpler generic
> >   implementation
> > 
> > Liam Beguin (14):
> >   iio: inkern: apply consumer scale on IIO_VAL_INT cases
> >   iio: inkern: apply consumer scale when no channel scale is available
> >   iio: inkern: make a best effort on offset calculation
> >   iio: afe: rescale: expose scale processing function
> >   iio: afe: rescale: add INT_PLUS_{MICRO,NANO} support
> >   iio: afe: rescale: add offset support
> >   iio: afe: rescale: use s64 for temporary scale calculations
> >   iio: afe: rescale: reduce risk of integer overflow
> >   iio: afe: rescale: fix accuracy for small fractional scales
> 
> Can you please swap the order of these two patches? (i.e. "reduce
> risk..." and "fix accuracy...")
> 
> Basically, I think the accuracy of the IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2
> case should be improved before the IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL case is
> joined with it. I.e. swap the order of 8/14 and 9/14 (or almost,
> you need to also move the addition of the
> scale_type == IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL condition to the other patch in
> order for it to make sense).

Makes sense! I'll swap the order of these commits.

> That's all I'm finding. But then again, I don't know what to do
> about the 0day report on 10/14. It does say that it's a W=1
> build, maybe we need not worry about it?

I didn't have a chance to look into that more, but will now.

Cheers,
Liam

> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> >   iio: test: add basic tests for the iio-rescale driver
> >   iio: afe: rescale: add RTD temperature sensor support
> >   iio: afe: rescale: add temperature transducers
> >   dt-bindings: iio: afe: add bindings for temperature-sense-rtd
> >   dt-bindings: iio: afe: add bindings for temperature transducers
>