[PATCH v1 1/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Don't hard code defined constants in messages

[PATCH v1 1/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Don't hard code defined constants in messages

[Andy Shevchenko]

In a couple of messages the constants, which have their definitions,
are hard coded into the message text. Unhardcode them.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c b/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
index 301c3f13fb26..d272c303c1b0 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
@@ -409,8 +409,8 @@ static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
 	new_custom->size = n_entries * n_size;
 	/* check Steinhart size */
 	if (is_steinhart && new_custom->size != LTC2983_CUSTOM_STEINHART_SIZE) {
-		dev_err(dev, "Steinhart sensors size(%zu) must be 24",
-							new_custom->size);
+		dev_err(dev, "Steinhart sensors size(%zu) must be %d", new_custom->size,
+			LTC2983_CUSTOM_STEINHART_SIZE);
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 	}
 	/* Check space on the table. */
@@ -1299,8 +1299,8 @@ static int ltc2983_parse_dt(struct ltc2983_data *st)
 		if (sensor.chan < LTC2983_MIN_CHANNELS_NR ||
 		    sensor.chan > LTC2983_MAX_CHANNELS_NR) {
 			ret = -EINVAL;
-			dev_err(dev,
-				"chan:%d must be from 1 to 20\n", sensor.chan);
+			dev_err(dev, "chan:%d must be from %d to %d\n", sensor.chan,
+				LTC2983_MIN_CHANNELS_NR, LTC2983_MAX_CHANNELS_NR);
 			goto put_child;
 		} else if (channel_avail_mask & BIT(sensor.chan)) {
 			ret = -EINVAL;
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH v1 2/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Make use of device properties

[Andy Shevchenko]

Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow
it to be used on non-OF platforms.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c | 211 +++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c b/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
index d272c303c1b0..a2fcea7d9d90 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
@@ -12,11 +12,15 @@
 #include <linux/iio/iio.h>
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>
 #include <linux/list.h>
+#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
-#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
+#include <linux/property.h>
 #include <linux/regmap.h>
 #include <linux/spi/spi.h>
 
+#include <asm/byteorder.h>
+#include <asm/unaligned.h>
+
 /* register map */
 #define LTC2983_STATUS_REG			0x0000
 #define LTC2983_TEMP_RES_START_REG		0x0010
@@ -219,7 +223,7 @@ struct ltc2983_sensor {
 
 struct ltc2983_custom_sensor {
 	/* raw table sensor data */
-	u8 *table;
+	void *table;
 	size_t size;
 	/* address offset */
 	s8 offset;
@@ -377,25 +381,25 @@ static int __ltc2983_chan_custom_sensor_assign(struct ltc2983_data *st,
 	return regmap_bulk_write(st->regmap, reg, custom->table, custom->size);
 }
 
-static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
-						struct ltc2983_data *st,
-						const struct device_node *np,
-						const char *propname,
-						const bool is_steinhart,
-						const u32 resolution,
-						const bool has_signed)
+static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *
+__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(struct ltc2983_data *st, const struct fwnode_handle *fn,
+			    const char *propname, const bool is_steinhart,
+			    const u32 resolution, const bool has_signed)
 {
 	struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *new_custom;
-	u8 index, n_entries, tbl = 0;
 	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
 	/*
 	 * For custom steinhart, the full u32 is taken. For all the others
 	 * the MSB is discarded.
 	 */
 	const u8 n_size = is_steinhart ? 4 : 3;
-	const u8 e_size = is_steinhart ? sizeof(u32) : sizeof(u64);
+	u8 index, n_entries;
+	int ret;
 
-	n_entries = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, propname, e_size);
+	if (is_steinhart)
+		n_entries = fwnode_property_count_u32(fn, propname);
+	else
+		n_entries = fwnode_property_count_u64(fn, propname);
 	/* n_entries must be an even number */
 	if (!n_entries || (n_entries % 2) != 0) {
 		dev_err(dev, "Number of entries either 0 or not even\n");
@@ -415,29 +419,39 @@ static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
 	}
 	/* Check space on the table. */
 	if (st->custom_table_size + new_custom->size >
-	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG -
-	     LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {
+	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG - LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {
 		dev_err(dev, "No space left(%d) for new custom sensor(%zu)",
 				st->custom_table_size, new_custom->size);
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 	}
 
 	/* allocate the table */
-	new_custom->table = devm_kzalloc(dev, new_custom->size, GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (is_steinhart)
+		new_custom->table = devm_kcalloc(dev, n_entries, sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
+	else
+		new_custom->table = devm_kcalloc(dev, n_entries, sizeof(u64), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!new_custom->table)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	for (index = 0; index < n_entries; index++) {
-		u64 temp = 0, j;
-		/*
-		 * Steinhart sensors are configured with raw values in the
-		 * devicetree. For the other sensors we must convert the
-		 * value to raw. The odd index's correspond to temperarures
-		 * and always have 1/1024 of resolution. Temperatures also
-		 * come in kelvin, so signed values is not possible
-		 */
-		if (!is_steinhart) {
-			of_property_read_u64_index(np, propname, index, &temp);
+	if (is_steinhart)
+		ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(fn, propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
+	else
+		ret = fwnode_property_read_u64_array(fn, propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		return ERR_PTR(ret);
+
+	/*
+	 * Steinhart sensors are configured with raw values in the device tree.
+	 * For the other sensors we must convert the value to raw. The odd
+	 * index's correspond to temperatures and always have 1/1024 of
+	 * resolution. Temperatures also come in Kelvin, so signed values is
+	 * not possible.
+	 */
+	if (is_steinhart) {
+		cpu_to_be32_array(new_custom->table, new_custom->table, n_entries);
+	} else {
+		for (index = 0; index < n_entries; index++) {
+			u64 temp = ((u64 *)new_custom->table)[index];
 
 			if ((index % 2) != 0)
 				temp = __convert_to_raw(temp, 1024);
@@ -445,16 +459,9 @@ static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
 				temp = __convert_to_raw_sign(temp, resolution);
 			else
 				temp = __convert_to_raw(temp, resolution);
-		} else {
-			u32 t32;
 
-			of_property_read_u32_index(np, propname, index, &t32);
-			temp = t32;
+			put_unaligned_be24(temp, new_custom->table + index * 3);
 		}
-
-		for (j = 0; j < n_size; j++)
-			new_custom->table[tbl++] =
-				temp >> (8 * (n_size - j - 1));
 	}
 
 	new_custom->is_steinhart = is_steinhart;
@@ -597,13 +604,12 @@ static int ltc2983_adc_assign_chan(struct ltc2983_data *st,
 	return __ltc2983_chan_assign_common(st, sensor, chan_val);
 }
 
-static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermocouple_new(
-					const struct device_node *child,
-					struct ltc2983_data *st,
-					const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
+static struct ltc2983_sensor *
+ltc2983_thermocouple_new(const struct fwnode_handle *child, struct ltc2983_data *st,
+			 const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
 {
 	struct ltc2983_thermocouple *thermo;
-	struct device_node *phandle;
+	struct fwnode_handle *ref;
 	u32 oc_current;
 	int ret;
 
@@ -611,11 +617,10 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermocouple_new(
 	if (!thermo)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended"))
+	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended"))
 		thermo->sensor_config = LTC2983_THERMOCOUPLE_SGL(1);
 
-	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,sensor-oc-current-microamp",
-				   &oc_current);
+	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,sensor-oc-current-microamp", &oc_current);
 	if (!ret) {
 		switch (oc_current) {
 		case 10:
@@ -651,19 +656,18 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermocouple_new(
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 	}
 
-	phandle = of_parse_phandle(child, "adi,cold-junction-handle", 0);
-	if (phandle) {
+	ref = fwnode_find_reference(child, "adi,cold-junction-handle", 0);
+	if (ref) {
 		int ret;
 
-		ret = of_property_read_u32(phandle, "reg",
-					   &thermo->cold_junction_chan);
+		ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(ref, "reg", &thermo->cold_junction_chan);
 		if (ret) {
 			/*
 			 * This would be catched later but we can just return
 			 * the error right away.
 			 */
 			dev_err(&st->spi->dev, "Property reg must be given\n");
-			of_node_put(phandle);
+			fwnode_handle_put(ref);
 			return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 		}
 	}
@@ -676,7 +680,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermocouple_new(
 							     propname, false,
 							     16384, true);
 		if (IS_ERR(thermo->custom)) {
-			of_node_put(phandle);
+			fwnode_handle_put(ref);
 			return ERR_CAST(thermo->custom);
 		}
 	}
@@ -685,37 +689,37 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermocouple_new(
 	thermo->sensor.fault_handler = ltc2983_thermocouple_fault_handler;
 	thermo->sensor.assign_chan = ltc2983_thermocouple_assign_chan;
 
-	of_node_put(phandle);
+	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
 	return &thermo->sensor;
 }
 
-static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
-					  struct ltc2983_data *st,
-					  const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
+static struct ltc2983_sensor *
+ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct fwnode_handle *child, struct ltc2983_data *st,
+		const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
 {
 	struct ltc2983_rtd *rtd;
 	int ret = 0;
 	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
-	struct device_node *phandle;
+	struct fwnode_handle *ref;
 	u32 excitation_current = 0, n_wires = 0;
 
 	rtd = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*rtd), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!rtd)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	phandle = of_parse_phandle(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
-	if (!phandle) {
+	ref = fwnode_find_reference(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
+	if (!ref) {
 		dev_err(dev, "Property adi,rsense-handle missing or invalid");
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 	}
 
-	ret = of_property_read_u32(phandle, "reg", &rtd->r_sense_chan);
+	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(ref, "reg", &rtd->r_sense_chan);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(dev, "Property reg must be given\n");
 		goto fail;
 	}
 
-	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,number-of-wires", &n_wires);
+	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,number-of-wires", &n_wires);
 	if (!ret) {
 		switch (n_wires) {
 		case 2:
@@ -738,9 +742,9 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
 		}
 	}
 
-	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
+	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
 		/* Current rotation is only available with rsense sharing */
-		if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate")) {
+		if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate")) {
 			if (n_wires == 2 || n_wires == 3) {
 				dev_err(dev,
 					"Rotation not allowed for 2/3 Wire RTDs");
@@ -803,7 +807,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
 							  "adi,custom-rtd",
 							  false, 2048, false);
 		if (IS_ERR(rtd->custom)) {
-			of_node_put(phandle);
+			fwnode_handle_put(ref);
 			return ERR_CAST(rtd->custom);
 		}
 	}
@@ -812,8 +816,8 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
 	rtd->sensor.fault_handler = ltc2983_common_fault_handler;
 	rtd->sensor.assign_chan = ltc2983_rtd_assign_chan;
 
-	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-microamp",
-				   &excitation_current);
+	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-microamp",
+				       &excitation_current);
 	if (ret) {
 		/* default to 5uA */
 		rtd->excitation_current = 1;
@@ -852,23 +856,22 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
 		}
 	}
 
-	of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,rtd-curve", &rtd->rtd_curve);
+	fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,rtd-curve", &rtd->rtd_curve);
 
-	of_node_put(phandle);
+	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
 	return &rtd->sensor;
 fail:
-	of_node_put(phandle);
+	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
 	return ERR_PTR(ret);
 }
 
-static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
-					const struct device_node *child,
-					struct ltc2983_data *st,
-					const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
+static struct ltc2983_sensor *
+ltc2983_thermistor_new(const struct fwnode_handle *child, struct ltc2983_data *st,
+		       const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
 {
 	struct ltc2983_thermistor *thermistor;
 	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
-	struct device_node *phandle;
+	struct fwnode_handle *ref;
 	u32 excitation_current = 0;
 	int ret = 0;
 
@@ -876,23 +879,23 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
 	if (!thermistor)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	phandle = of_parse_phandle(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
-	if (!phandle) {
+	ref = fwnode_find_reference(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
+	if (!ref) {
 		dev_err(dev, "Property adi,rsense-handle missing or invalid");
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 	}
 
-	ret = of_property_read_u32(phandle, "reg", &thermistor->r_sense_chan);
+	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(ref, "reg", &thermistor->r_sense_chan);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(dev, "rsense channel must be configured...\n");
 		goto fail;
 	}
 
-	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended")) {
+	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended")) {
 		thermistor->sensor_config = LTC2983_THERMISTOR_SGL(1);
-	} else if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
+	} else if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
 		/* rotation is only possible if sharing rsense */
-		if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate"))
+		if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate"))
 			thermistor->sensor_config =
 						LTC2983_THERMISTOR_C_ROTATE(1);
 		else
@@ -926,7 +929,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
 								 steinhart,
 								 64, false);
 		if (IS_ERR(thermistor->custom)) {
-			of_node_put(phandle);
+			fwnode_handle_put(ref);
 			return ERR_CAST(thermistor->custom);
 		}
 	}
@@ -934,8 +937,8 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
 	thermistor->sensor.fault_handler = ltc2983_common_fault_handler;
 	thermistor->sensor.assign_chan = ltc2983_thermistor_assign_chan;
 
-	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-nanoamp",
-				   &excitation_current);
+	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-nanoamp",
+				       &excitation_current);
 	if (ret) {
 		/* Auto range is not allowed for custom sensors */
 		if (sensor->type >= LTC2983_SENSOR_THERMISTOR_STEINHART)
@@ -999,17 +1002,16 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
 		}
 	}
 
-	of_node_put(phandle);
+	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
 	return &thermistor->sensor;
 fail:
-	of_node_put(phandle);
+	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
 	return ERR_PTR(ret);
 }
 
-static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_diode_new(
-					const struct device_node *child,
-					const struct ltc2983_data *st,
-					const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
+static struct ltc2983_sensor *
+ltc2983_diode_new(const struct fwnode_handle *child, const struct ltc2983_data *st,
+		  const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
 {
 	struct ltc2983_diode *diode;
 	u32 temp = 0, excitation_current = 0;
@@ -1019,13 +1021,13 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_diode_new(
 	if (!diode)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended"))
+	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended"))
 		diode->sensor_config = LTC2983_DIODE_SGL(1);
 
-	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,three-conversion-cycles"))
+	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,three-conversion-cycles"))
 		diode->sensor_config |= LTC2983_DIODE_3_CONV_CYCLE(1);
 
-	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,average-on"))
+	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,average-on"))
 		diode->sensor_config |= LTC2983_DIODE_AVERAGE_ON(1);
 
 	/* validate channel index */
@@ -1040,8 +1042,8 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_diode_new(
 	diode->sensor.fault_handler = ltc2983_common_fault_handler;
 	diode->sensor.assign_chan = ltc2983_diode_assign_chan;
 
-	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-microamp",
-				   &excitation_current);
+	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-microamp",
+				       &excitation_current);
 	if (!ret) {
 		switch (excitation_current) {
 		case 10:
@@ -1064,7 +1066,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_diode_new(
 		}
 	}
 
-	of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,ideal-factor-value", &temp);
+	fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,ideal-factor-value", &temp);
 
 	/* 2^20 resolution */
 	diode->ideal_factor_value = __convert_to_raw(temp, 1048576);
@@ -1072,7 +1074,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_diode_new(
 	return &diode->sensor;
 }
 
-static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_r_sense_new(struct device_node *child,
+static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_r_sense_new(struct fwnode_handle *child,
 					struct ltc2983_data *st,
 					const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
 {
@@ -1091,7 +1093,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_r_sense_new(struct device_node *child,
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 	}
 
-	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,rsense-val-milli-ohms", &temp);
+	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,rsense-val-milli-ohms", &temp);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&st->spi->dev, "Property adi,rsense-val-milli-ohms missing\n");
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
@@ -1110,7 +1112,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_r_sense_new(struct device_node *child,
 	return &rsense->sensor;
 }
 
-static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_adc_new(struct device_node *child,
+static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_adc_new(struct fwnode_handle *child,
 					 struct ltc2983_data *st,
 					 const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
 {
@@ -1120,7 +1122,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_adc_new(struct device_node *child,
 	if (!adc)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended"))
+	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended"))
 		adc->single_ended = true;
 
 	if (!adc->single_ended &&
@@ -1264,17 +1266,15 @@ static irqreturn_t ltc2983_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
 
 static int ltc2983_parse_dt(struct ltc2983_data *st)
 {
-	struct device_node *child;
 	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
+	struct fwnode_handle *child;
 	int ret = 0, chan = 0, channel_avail_mask = 0;
 
-	of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "adi,mux-delay-config-us",
-			     &st->mux_delay_config);
+	device_property_read_u32(dev, "adi,mux-delay-config-us", &st->mux_delay_config);
 
-	of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "adi,filter-notch-freq",
-			     &st->filter_notch_freq);
+	device_property_read_u32(dev, "adi,filter-notch-freq", &st->filter_notch_freq);
 
-	st->num_channels = of_get_available_child_count(dev->of_node);
+	st->num_channels = device_get_child_node_count(dev);
 	if (!st->num_channels) {
 		dev_err(&st->spi->dev, "At least one channel must be given!");
 		return -EINVAL;
@@ -1286,10 +1286,10 @@ static int ltc2983_parse_dt(struct ltc2983_data *st)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
 	st->iio_channels = st->num_channels;
-	for_each_available_child_of_node(dev->of_node, child) {
+	device_for_each_child_node(dev, child) {
 		struct ltc2983_sensor sensor;
 
-		ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &sensor.chan);
+		ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &sensor.chan);
 		if (ret) {
 			dev_err(dev, "reg property must given for child nodes\n");
 			goto put_child;
@@ -1308,8 +1308,7 @@ static int ltc2983_parse_dt(struct ltc2983_data *st)
 			goto put_child;
 		}
 
-		ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,sensor-type",
-					       &sensor.type);
+		ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,sensor-type", &sensor.type);
 		if (ret) {
 			dev_err(dev,
 				"adi,sensor-type property must given for child nodes\n");
@@ -1363,7 +1362,7 @@ static int ltc2983_parse_dt(struct ltc2983_data *st)
 
 	return 0;
 put_child:
-	of_node_put(child);
+	fwnode_handle_put(child);
 	return ret;
 }
 
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Make use of device properties

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu,  3 Feb 2022 13:45:06 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow
> it to be used on non-OF platforms.

This description needs expansion as it's not a straight forward
conversion.

Also, complex enough that I definitely want more eyes and preferably
some testing.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c | 211 +++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c b/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
> index d272c303c1b0..a2fcea7d9d90 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
> @@ -12,11 +12,15 @@
>  #include <linux/iio/iio.h>
>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>  #include <linux/list.h>
> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
> -#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> +#include <linux/property.h>
>  #include <linux/regmap.h>
>  #include <linux/spi/spi.h>
>  
> +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
> +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> +
This may well be a valid addition but it's not called out in the patch
description.

>  /* register map */
>  #define LTC2983_STATUS_REG			0x0000
>  #define LTC2983_TEMP_RES_START_REG		0x0010
> @@ -219,7 +223,7 @@ struct ltc2983_sensor {
>  
>  struct ltc2983_custom_sensor {
>  	/* raw table sensor data */
> -	u8 *table;
> +	void *table;
>  	size_t size;
>  	/* address offset */
>  	s8 offset;
> @@ -377,25 +381,25 @@ static int __ltc2983_chan_custom_sensor_assign(struct ltc2983_data *st,
>  	return regmap_bulk_write(st->regmap, reg, custom->table, custom->size);
>  }
>  
> -static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
> -						struct ltc2983_data *st,
> -						const struct device_node *np,
> -						const char *propname,
> -						const bool is_steinhart,
> -						const u32 resolution,
> -						const bool has_signed)
> +static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *
> +__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(struct ltc2983_data *st, const struct fwnode_handle *fn,
> +			    const char *propname, const bool is_steinhart,
> +			    const u32 resolution, const bool has_signed)
>  {
>  	struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *new_custom;
> -	u8 index, n_entries, tbl = 0;
>  	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
>  	/*
>  	 * For custom steinhart, the full u32 is taken. For all the others
>  	 * the MSB is discarded.
>  	 */
>  	const u8 n_size = is_steinhart ? 4 : 3;
> -	const u8 e_size = is_steinhart ? sizeof(u32) : sizeof(u64);
> +	u8 index, n_entries;
> +	int ret;
>  
> -	n_entries = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, propname, e_size);
> +	if (is_steinhart)
> +		n_entries = fwnode_property_count_u32(fn, propname);
> +	else
> +		n_entries = fwnode_property_count_u64(fn, propname);
>  	/* n_entries must be an even number */
>  	if (!n_entries || (n_entries % 2) != 0) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Number of entries either 0 or not even\n");
> @@ -415,29 +419,39 @@ static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
>  	}
>  	/* Check space on the table. */
>  	if (st->custom_table_size + new_custom->size >
> -	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG -
> -	     LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {
> +	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG - LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {

Shouldn't really be in this patch. Or at very least call out that there is
whitespace cleanup in the patch description.

>  		dev_err(dev, "No space left(%d) for new custom sensor(%zu)",
>  				st->custom_table_size, new_custom->size);
>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  	}
>  
>  	/* allocate the table */
> -	new_custom->table = devm_kzalloc(dev, new_custom->size, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (is_steinhart)
> +		new_custom->table = devm_kcalloc(dev, n_entries, sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	else
> +		new_custom->table = devm_kcalloc(dev, n_entries, sizeof(u64), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!new_custom->table)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	for (index = 0; index < n_entries; index++) {
> -		u64 temp = 0, j;
> -		/*
> -		 * Steinhart sensors are configured with raw values in the
> -		 * devicetree. For the other sensors we must convert the
> -		 * value to raw. The odd index's correspond to temperarures
> -		 * and always have 1/1024 of resolution. Temperatures also
> -		 * come in kelvin, so signed values is not possible
> -		 */
> -		if (!is_steinhart) {
> -			of_property_read_u64_index(np, propname, index, &temp);
> +	if (is_steinhart)
> +		ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(fn, propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> +	else
> +		ret = fwnode_property_read_u64_array(fn, propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Steinhart sensors are configured with raw values in the device tree.
> +	 * For the other sensors we must convert the value to raw. The odd
> +	 * index's correspond to temperatures and always have 1/1024 of
> +	 * resolution. Temperatures also come in Kelvin, so signed values is
> +	 * not possible.
> +	 */
> +	if (is_steinhart) {

Perhaps would be cleaner to combine this if else with the one above at the cost
of duplicating the if (ret < 0) check.

> +		cpu_to_be32_array(new_custom->table, new_custom->table, n_entries);

I completely failed to register the hand coded big endian conversion.  Nice
tidy up.  However, definitely something to call out in the patch description.

> +	} else {
> +		for (index = 0; index < n_entries; index++) {
> +			u64 temp = ((u64 *)new_custom->table)[index];
>  
>  			if ((index % 2) != 0)
>  				temp = __convert_to_raw(temp, 1024);
> @@ -445,16 +459,9 @@ static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
>  				temp = __convert_to_raw_sign(temp, resolution);
>  			else
>  				temp = __convert_to_raw(temp, resolution);
> -		} else {
> -			u32 t32;
>  
> -			of_property_read_u32_index(np, propname, index, &t32);
> -			temp = t32;
> +			put_unaligned_be24(temp, new_custom->table + index * 3);
>  		}
> -
> -		for (j = 0; j < n_size; j++)
> -			new_custom->table[tbl++] =
> -				temp >> (8 * (n_size - j - 1));
>  	}
>  
>  	new_custom->is_steinhart = is_steinhart;
> @@ -597,13 +604,12 @@ static int ltc2983_adc_assign_chan(struct ltc2983_data *st,
>  	return __ltc2983_chan_assign_common(st, sensor, chan_val);
>  }
>  

...

> -static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
> -					  struct ltc2983_data *st,
> -					  const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
> +static struct ltc2983_sensor *
> +ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct fwnode_handle *child, struct ltc2983_data *st,
> +		const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
>  {
>  	struct ltc2983_rtd *rtd;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
> -	struct device_node *phandle;
> +	struct fwnode_handle *ref;
>  	u32 excitation_current = 0, n_wires = 0;
>  
>  	rtd = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*rtd), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!rtd)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	phandle = of_parse_phandle(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
> -	if (!phandle) {
> +	ref = fwnode_find_reference(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
> +	if (!ref) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Property adi,rsense-handle missing or invalid");
>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(phandle, "reg", &rtd->r_sense_chan);
> +	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(ref, "reg", &rtd->r_sense_chan);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Property reg must be given\n");
>  		goto fail;
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,number-of-wires", &n_wires);
> +	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,number-of-wires", &n_wires);
>  	if (!ret) {
>  		switch (n_wires) {
>  		case 2:
> @@ -738,9 +742,9 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
> +	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
>  		/* Current rotation is only available with rsense sharing */
> -		if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate")) {
> +		if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate")) {
>  			if (n_wires == 2 || n_wires == 3) {
>  				dev_err(dev,
>  					"Rotation not allowed for 2/3 Wire RTDs");
> @@ -803,7 +807,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
>  							  "adi,custom-rtd",
>  							  false, 2048, false);
>  		if (IS_ERR(rtd->custom)) {
> -			of_node_put(phandle);
> +			fwnode_handle_put(ref);

I guess there was a bunch of cut and paste in this driver ;) Same question as below
on whether we can just use a goto here to share the put in the fail path.

>  			return ERR_CAST(rtd->custom);
>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -812,8 +816,8 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
>  	rtd->sensor.fault_handler = ltc2983_common_fault_handler;
>  	rtd->sensor.assign_chan = ltc2983_rtd_assign_chan;
>  
> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-microamp",
> -				   &excitation_current);
> +	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-microamp",
> +				       &excitation_current);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		/* default to 5uA */
>  		rtd->excitation_current = 1;
> @@ -852,23 +856,22 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,rtd-curve", &rtd->rtd_curve);
> +	fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,rtd-curve", &rtd->rtd_curve);
>  
> -	of_node_put(phandle);
> +	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
>  	return &rtd->sensor;
>  fail:
> -	of_node_put(phandle);
> +	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
>  	return ERR_PTR(ret);
>  }
>  
> -static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
> -					const struct device_node *child,
> -					struct ltc2983_data *st,
> -					const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
> +static struct ltc2983_sensor *
> +ltc2983_thermistor_new(const struct fwnode_handle *child, struct ltc2983_data *st,
> +		       const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
>  {
>  	struct ltc2983_thermistor *thermistor;
>  	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
> -	struct device_node *phandle;
> +	struct fwnode_handle *ref;
>  	u32 excitation_current = 0;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> @@ -876,23 +879,23 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
>  	if (!thermistor)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	phandle = of_parse_phandle(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
> -	if (!phandle) {
> +	ref = fwnode_find_reference(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
> +	if (!ref) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Property adi,rsense-handle missing or invalid");
>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(phandle, "reg", &thermistor->r_sense_chan);
> +	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(ref, "reg", &thermistor->r_sense_chan);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "rsense channel must be configured...\n");
>  		goto fail;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended")) {
> +	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended")) {
>  		thermistor->sensor_config = LTC2983_THERMISTOR_SGL(1);
> -	} else if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
> +	} else if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
>  		/* rotation is only possible if sharing rsense */
> -		if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate"))
> +		if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate"))
>  			thermistor->sensor_config =
>  						LTC2983_THERMISTOR_C_ROTATE(1);
>  		else
> @@ -926,7 +929,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
>  								 steinhart,
>  								 64, false);
>  		if (IS_ERR(thermistor->custom)) {
> -			of_node_put(phandle);
> +			fwnode_handle_put(ref);
>  			return ERR_CAST(thermistor->custom);

Obviously not due to this patch, but this is odd.  Why have one error path
that doesn't use the goto faill;?
If you could tidy that up and add a note on it to the patch description
that would be great.

>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -934,8 +937,8 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
>  	thermistor->sensor.fault_handler = ltc2983_common_fault_handler;
>  	thermistor->sensor.assign_chan = ltc2983_thermistor_assign_chan;
>  
> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-nanoamp",
> -				   &excitation_current);
> +	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-nanoamp",
> +				       &excitation_current);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		/* Auto range is not allowed for custom sensors */
>  		if (sensor->type >= LTC2983_SENSOR_THERMISTOR_STEINHART)
> @@ -999,17 +1002,16 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	of_node_put(phandle);
> +	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
>  	return &thermistor->sensor;
>  fail:
> -	of_node_put(phandle);
> +	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
>  	return ERR_PTR(ret);
>  }
>  

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Make use of device properties

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu,  3 Feb 2022 13:45:06 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow
> it to be used on non-OF platforms.

This description needs expansion as it's not a straight forward
conversion.

Also, complex enough that I definitely want more eyes and preferably
some testing.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c | 211 +++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c b/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
> index d272c303c1b0..a2fcea7d9d90 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/temperature/ltc2983.c
> @@ -12,11 +12,15 @@
>  #include <linux/iio/iio.h>
>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>  #include <linux/list.h>
> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
> -#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> +#include <linux/property.h>
>  #include <linux/regmap.h>
>  #include <linux/spi/spi.h>
>  
> +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
> +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> +
>  /* register map */
>  #define LTC2983_STATUS_REG			0x0000
>  #define LTC2983_TEMP_RES_START_REG		0x0010
> @@ -219,7 +223,7 @@ struct ltc2983_sensor {
>  
>  struct ltc2983_custom_sensor {
>  	/* raw table sensor data */
> -	u8 *table;
> +	void *table;
>  	size_t size;
>  	/* address offset */
>  	s8 offset;
> @@ -377,25 +381,25 @@ static int __ltc2983_chan_custom_sensor_assign(struct ltc2983_data *st,
>  	return regmap_bulk_write(st->regmap, reg, custom->table, custom->size);
>  }
>  
> -static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
> -						struct ltc2983_data *st,
> -						const struct device_node *np,
> -						const char *propname,
> -						const bool is_steinhart,
> -						const u32 resolution,
> -						const bool has_signed)
> +static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *
> +__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(struct ltc2983_data *st, const struct fwnode_handle *fn,
> +			    const char *propname, const bool is_steinhart,
> +			    const u32 resolution, const bool has_signed)
>  {
>  	struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *new_custom;
> -	u8 index, n_entries, tbl = 0;
>  	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
>  	/*
>  	 * For custom steinhart, the full u32 is taken. For all the others
>  	 * the MSB is discarded.
>  	 */
>  	const u8 n_size = is_steinhart ? 4 : 3;
> -	const u8 e_size = is_steinhart ? sizeof(u32) : sizeof(u64);
> +	u8 index, n_entries;
> +	int ret;
>  
> -	n_entries = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, propname, e_size);
> +	if (is_steinhart)
> +		n_entries = fwnode_property_count_u32(fn, propname);
> +	else
> +		n_entries = fwnode_property_count_u64(fn, propname);
>  	/* n_entries must be an even number */
>  	if (!n_entries || (n_entries % 2) != 0) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Number of entries either 0 or not even\n");
> @@ -415,29 +419,39 @@ static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
>  	}
>  	/* Check space on the table. */
>  	if (st->custom_table_size + new_custom->size >
> -	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG -
> -	     LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {
> +	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG - LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {

Shouldn't really be in this patch. Or at very least call out that there is
whitespace cleanup in the patch description.

>  		dev_err(dev, "No space left(%d) for new custom sensor(%zu)",
>  				st->custom_table_size, new_custom->size);
>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  	}
>  
>  	/* allocate the table */
> -	new_custom->table = devm_kzalloc(dev, new_custom->size, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (is_steinhart)
> +		new_custom->table = devm_kcalloc(dev, n_entries, sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	else
> +		new_custom->table = devm_kcalloc(dev, n_entries, sizeof(u64), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!new_custom->table)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	for (index = 0; index < n_entries; index++) {
> -		u64 temp = 0, j;
> -		/*
> -		 * Steinhart sensors are configured with raw values in the
> -		 * devicetree. For the other sensors we must convert the
> -		 * value to raw. The odd index's correspond to temperarures
> -		 * and always have 1/1024 of resolution. Temperatures also
> -		 * come in kelvin, so signed values is not possible
> -		 */
> -		if (!is_steinhart) {
> -			of_property_read_u64_index(np, propname, index, &temp);
> +	if (is_steinhart)
> +		ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(fn, propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> +	else
> +		ret = fwnode_property_read_u64_array(fn, propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Steinhart sensors are configured with raw values in the device tree.
> +	 * For the other sensors we must convert the value to raw. The odd
> +	 * index's correspond to temperatures and always have 1/1024 of
> +	 * resolution. Temperatures also come in Kelvin, so signed values is
> +	 * not possible.
> +	 */
> +	if (is_steinhart) {

Perhaps would be cleaner to combine this if else with the one above at the cost
of duplicating the if (ret < 0) check.

> +		cpu_to_be32_array(new_custom->table, new_custom->table, n_entries);

I completely failed to register the hand coded big endian conversion.  Nice
tidy up.  However, definitely something to call out in the patch description.

> +	} else {
> +		for (index = 0; index < n_entries; index++) {
> +			u64 temp = ((u64 *)new_custom->table)[index];
>  
>  			if ((index % 2) != 0)
>  				temp = __convert_to_raw(temp, 1024);
> @@ -445,16 +459,9 @@ static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
>  				temp = __convert_to_raw_sign(temp, resolution);
>  			else
>  				temp = __convert_to_raw(temp, resolution);
> -		} else {
> -			u32 t32;
>  
> -			of_property_read_u32_index(np, propname, index, &t32);
> -			temp = t32;
> +			put_unaligned_be24(temp, new_custom->table + index * 3);
>  		}
> -
> -		for (j = 0; j < n_size; j++)
> -			new_custom->table[tbl++] =
> -				temp >> (8 * (n_size - j - 1));
>  	}
>  
>  	new_custom->is_steinhart = is_steinhart;
> @@ -597,13 +604,12 @@ static int ltc2983_adc_assign_chan(struct ltc2983_data *st,
>  	return __ltc2983_chan_assign_common(st, sensor, chan_val);
>  }
>  

...

> -static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
> -					  struct ltc2983_data *st,
> -					  const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
> +static struct ltc2983_sensor *
> +ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct fwnode_handle *child, struct ltc2983_data *st,
> +		const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
>  {
>  	struct ltc2983_rtd *rtd;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
> -	struct device_node *phandle;
> +	struct fwnode_handle *ref;
>  	u32 excitation_current = 0, n_wires = 0;
>  
>  	rtd = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*rtd), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!rtd)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	phandle = of_parse_phandle(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
> -	if (!phandle) {
> +	ref = fwnode_find_reference(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
> +	if (!ref) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Property adi,rsense-handle missing or invalid");
>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(phandle, "reg", &rtd->r_sense_chan);
> +	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(ref, "reg", &rtd->r_sense_chan);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Property reg must be given\n");
>  		goto fail;
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,number-of-wires", &n_wires);
> +	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,number-of-wires", &n_wires);
>  	if (!ret) {
>  		switch (n_wires) {
>  		case 2:
> @@ -738,9 +742,9 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
> +	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
>  		/* Current rotation is only available with rsense sharing */
> -		if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate")) {
> +		if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate")) {
>  			if (n_wires == 2 || n_wires == 3) {
>  				dev_err(dev,
>  					"Rotation not allowed for 2/3 Wire RTDs");
> @@ -803,7 +807,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
>  							  "adi,custom-rtd",
>  							  false, 2048, false);
>  		if (IS_ERR(rtd->custom)) {
> -			of_node_put(phandle);
> +			fwnode_handle_put(ref);

I guess there was a bunch of cut and paste in this driver ;) Same question as below
on whether we can just use a goto here to share the put in the fail path.

>  			return ERR_CAST(rtd->custom);
>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -812,8 +816,8 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
>  	rtd->sensor.fault_handler = ltc2983_common_fault_handler;
>  	rtd->sensor.assign_chan = ltc2983_rtd_assign_chan;
>  
> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-microamp",
> -				   &excitation_current);
> +	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-microamp",
> +				       &excitation_current);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		/* default to 5uA */
>  		rtd->excitation_current = 1;
> @@ -852,23 +856,22 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_rtd_new(const struct device_node *child,
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,rtd-curve", &rtd->rtd_curve);
> +	fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,rtd-curve", &rtd->rtd_curve);
>  
> -	of_node_put(phandle);
> +	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
>  	return &rtd->sensor;
>  fail:
> -	of_node_put(phandle);
> +	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
>  	return ERR_PTR(ret);
>  }
>  
> -static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
> -					const struct device_node *child,
> -					struct ltc2983_data *st,
> -					const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
> +static struct ltc2983_sensor *
> +ltc2983_thermistor_new(const struct fwnode_handle *child, struct ltc2983_data *st,
> +		       const struct ltc2983_sensor *sensor)
>  {
>  	struct ltc2983_thermistor *thermistor;
>  	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
> -	struct device_node *phandle;
> +	struct fwnode_handle *ref;
>  	u32 excitation_current = 0;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> @@ -876,23 +879,23 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
>  	if (!thermistor)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	phandle = of_parse_phandle(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
> -	if (!phandle) {
> +	ref = fwnode_find_reference(child, "adi,rsense-handle", 0);
> +	if (!ref) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Property adi,rsense-handle missing or invalid");
>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(phandle, "reg", &thermistor->r_sense_chan);
> +	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(ref, "reg", &thermistor->r_sense_chan);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "rsense channel must be configured...\n");
>  		goto fail;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended")) {
> +	if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,single-ended")) {
>  		thermistor->sensor_config = LTC2983_THERMISTOR_SGL(1);
> -	} else if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
> +	} else if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,rsense-share")) {
>  		/* rotation is only possible if sharing rsense */
> -		if (of_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate"))
> +		if (fwnode_property_read_bool(child, "adi,current-rotate"))
>  			thermistor->sensor_config =
>  						LTC2983_THERMISTOR_C_ROTATE(1);
>  		else
> @@ -926,7 +929,7 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
>  								 steinhart,
>  								 64, false);
>  		if (IS_ERR(thermistor->custom)) {
> -			of_node_put(phandle);
> +			fwnode_handle_put(ref);
>  			return ERR_CAST(thermistor->custom);

Obviously not due to this patch, but this is odd.  Why have one error path
that doesn't use the goto faill;?
If you could tidy that up and add a note on it to the patch description
that would be great.

>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -934,8 +937,8 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
>  	thermistor->sensor.fault_handler = ltc2983_common_fault_handler;
>  	thermistor->sensor.assign_chan = ltc2983_thermistor_assign_chan;
>  
> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-nanoamp",
> -				   &excitation_current);
> +	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "adi,excitation-current-nanoamp",
> +				       &excitation_current);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		/* Auto range is not allowed for custom sensors */
>  		if (sensor->type >= LTC2983_SENSOR_THERMISTOR_STEINHART)
> @@ -999,17 +1002,16 @@ static struct ltc2983_sensor *ltc2983_thermistor_new(
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	of_node_put(phandle);
> +	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
>  	return &thermistor->sensor;
>  fail:
> -	of_node_put(phandle);
> +	fwnode_handle_put(ref);
>  	return ERR_PTR(ret);
>  }
>  

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Make use of device properties

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 05:14:54PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu,  3 Feb 2022 13:45:06 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow
> > it to be used on non-OF platforms.
> 
> This description needs expansion as it's not a straight forward
> conversion.
> 
> Also, complex enough that I definitely want more eyes and preferably
> some testing.

That's fair. I also spent most of the time on this change in comparison to the
whole bundle.

...

> > +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
> > +#include <asm/unaligned.h>

> This may well be a valid addition but it's not called out in the patch
> description.

This is a side effect of the change. Below I will try to explain, tell me if
that is what you want to be added to the commit message (feel free to correct
my English).

The conversion slightly changes the logic behind property reading for the
configuration values. Original code allocates just as much memory as needed.
Then for each separate 32- or 64-bit value it reads it from the property
and converts to a raw one which will be fed to the sensor. In the new code
we allocated the amount of memory needed to retrieve all values at once from
the property and then convert them as required.

...

> >  	if (st->custom_table_size + new_custom->size >
> > -	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG -
> > -	     LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {
> > +	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG - LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {
> 
> Shouldn't really be in this patch. Or at very least call out that there is
> whitespace cleanup in the patch description.

Good catch! It's a leftover, one case became a patch 1 in this series.

...

> > +	if (is_steinhart)
> > +		ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(fn, propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> > +	else
> > +		ret = fwnode_property_read_u64_array(fn, propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Steinhart sensors are configured with raw values in the device tree.
> > +	 * For the other sensors we must convert the value to raw. The odd
> > +	 * index's correspond to temperatures and always have 1/1024 of
> > +	 * resolution. Temperatures also come in Kelvin, so signed values is
> > +	 * not possible.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (is_steinhart) {
> 
> Perhaps would be cleaner to combine this if else with the one above at the cost
> of duplicating the if (ret < 0) check.

OK, I'm fine with either approach.

> > +		cpu_to_be32_array(new_custom->table, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> 
> I completely failed to register the hand coded big endian conversion.  Nice
> tidy up.  However, definitely something to call out in the patch description.

See above.

> > +	} else {
> > +		for (index = 0; index < n_entries; index++) {
> > +			u64 temp = ((u64 *)new_custom->table)[index];
> >  
> >  			if ((index % 2) != 0)
> >  				temp = __convert_to_raw(temp, 1024);
> > @@ -445,16 +459,9 @@ static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
> >  				temp = __convert_to_raw_sign(temp, resolution);
> >  			else
> >  				temp = __convert_to_raw(temp, resolution);
> > -		} else {
> > -			u32 t32;
> >  
> > -			of_property_read_u32_index(np, propname, index, &t32);
> > -			temp = t32;
> > +			put_unaligned_be24(temp, new_custom->table + index * 3);
> >  		}
> > -
> > -		for (j = 0; j < n_size; j++)
> > -			new_custom->table[tbl++] =
> > -				temp >> (8 * (n_size - j - 1));
> >  	}

...

> >  		if (IS_ERR(rtd->custom)) {
> > -			of_node_put(phandle);
> > +			fwnode_handle_put(ref);
> 
> I guess there was a bunch of cut and paste in this driver ;) Same question as below
> on whether we can just use a goto here to share the put in the fail path.

Probably as separate (preparatory) patch?

> >  			return ERR_CAST(rtd->custom);
> >  		}

...

> >  		if (IS_ERR(thermistor->custom)) {
> > -			of_node_put(phandle);
> > +			fwnode_handle_put(ref);
> >  			return ERR_CAST(thermistor->custom);
> 
> Obviously not due to this patch, but this is odd.  Why have one error path
> that doesn't use the goto faill;?
> If you could tidy that up and add a note on it to the patch description
> that would be great.

Same answer as above.

> >  		}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

RE: [PATCH v1 2/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Make use of device properties

[Sa, Nuno]

Hi all,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 5, 2022 7:24 PM
> To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Sa, Nuno
> <Nuno.Sa@analog.com>; Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Make use of
> device properties
> 
> [External]
> 
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 05:14:54PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu,  3 Feb 2022 13:45:06 +0200
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow
> > > it to be used on non-OF platforms.
> >
> > This description needs expansion as it's not a straight forward
> > conversion.
> >
> > Also, complex enough that I definitely want more eyes and
> preferably
> > some testing.
> 
> That's fair. I also spent most of the time on this change in comparison
> to the
> whole bundle.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
> > > +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> 
> > This may well be a valid addition but it's not called out in the patch
> > description.
> 
> This is a side effect of the change. Below I will try to explain, tell me if
> that is what you want to be added to the commit message (feel free to
> correct
> my English).
> 
> The conversion slightly changes the logic behind property reading for
> the
> configuration values. Original code allocates just as much memory as
> needed.
> Then for each separate 32- or 64-bit value it reads it from the property
> and converts to a raw one which will be fed to the sensor. In the new
> code
> we allocated the amount of memory needed to retrieve all values at
> once from
> the property and then convert them as required.

Yeah, I understood what you are doing... We allocate some extra bytes so
that we can simplify a lot the logic to get, convert and put back the properties
in the table... And since we are only writing the __real__ table size into the device
I'm fairly positive this works. However, I do agree with Jonathan and I would
be more confident to give this a test before being applied...

That said, I'm off till the end of the month (just doing minor stuff like replying
to emails :)), so if we can hold this one, I will test it first thing I'm back in the
office.


> ...
> 
> > >  	if (st->custom_table_size + new_custom->size >
> > > -	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG -
> > > -	     LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {
> > > +	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG -
> LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {
> >
> > Shouldn't really be in this patch. Or at very least call out that there is
> > whitespace cleanup in the patch description.
> 
> Good catch! It's a leftover, one case became a patch 1 in this series.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +	if (is_steinhart)
> > > +		ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(fn,
> propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> > > +	else
> > > +		ret = fwnode_property_read_u64_array(fn,
> propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> > > +	if (ret < 0)
> > > +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Steinhart sensors are configured with raw values in the
> device tree.
> > > +	 * For the other sensors we must convert the value to raw. The
> odd
> > > +	 * index's correspond to temperatures and always have 1/1024
> of
> > > +	 * resolution. Temperatures also come in Kelvin, so signed
> values is
> > > +	 * not possible.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (is_steinhart) {
> >
> > Perhaps would be cleaner to combine this if else with the one above
> at the cost
> > of duplicating the if (ret < 0) check.
> 
> OK, I'm fine with either approach.
> 
> > > +		cpu_to_be32_array(new_custom->table,
> new_custom->table, n_entries);
> >
> > I completely failed to register the hand coded big endian conversion.
> Nice
> > tidy up.  However, definitely something to call out in the patch
> description.

The hand coded big endian was done to not have to make a distinction between
3 and 4 bytes properties. With these changes it does not make sense anymore
to have it...

- Nuno Sá

RE: [PATCH v1 1/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Don't hard code defined constants in messages

[Sa, Nuno]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 12:45 PM
> To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>; linux-
> iio@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Sa, Nuno <Nuno.Sa@analog.com>; Jonathan Cameron
> <jic23@kernel.org>; Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
> Subject: [PATCH v1 1/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Don't hard code
> defined constants in messages
> 
> [External]
> 
> In a couple of messages the constants, which have their definitions,
> are hard coded into the message text. Unhardcode them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com>

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Make use of device properties

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 20:23:43 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 05:14:54PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu,  3 Feb 2022 13:45:06 +0200
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Convert the module to be property provider agnostic and allow
> > > it to be used on non-OF platforms.  
> > 
> > This description needs expansion as it's not a straight forward
> > conversion.
> > 
> > Also, complex enough that I definitely want more eyes and preferably
> > some testing.  
> 
> That's fair. I also spent most of the time on this change in comparison to the
> whole bundle.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
> > > +#include <asm/unaligned.h>  
> 
> > This may well be a valid addition but it's not called out in the patch
> > description.  
> 
> This is a side effect of the change. Below I will try to explain, tell me if
> that is what you want to be added to the commit message (feel free to correct
> my English).

I figured that out whilst it was sending but didn't hit cancel fast enough! :)

> 
> The conversion slightly changes the logic behind property reading for the
> configuration values. Original code allocates just as much memory as needed.
> Then for each separate 32- or 64-bit value it reads it from the property
> and converts to a raw one which will be fed to the sensor. In the new code
> we allocated the amount of memory needed to retrieve all values at once from
> the property and then convert them as required.

Good description to put in the patch description.

> 
> ...
> 
> > >  	if (st->custom_table_size + new_custom->size >
> > > -	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG -
> > > -	     LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {
> > > +	    (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG - LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {  
> > 
> > Shouldn't really be in this patch. Or at very least call out that there is
> > whitespace cleanup in the patch description.  
> 
> Good catch! It's a leftover, one case became a patch 1 in this series.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +	if (is_steinhart)
> > > +		ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(fn, propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> > > +	else
> > > +		ret = fwnode_property_read_u64_array(fn, propname, new_custom->table, n_entries);
> > > +	if (ret < 0)
> > > +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Steinhart sensors are configured with raw values in the device tree.
> > > +	 * For the other sensors we must convert the value to raw. The odd
> > > +	 * index's correspond to temperatures and always have 1/1024 of
> > > +	 * resolution. Temperatures also come in Kelvin, so signed values is
> > > +	 * not possible.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (is_steinhart) {  
> > 
> > Perhaps would be cleaner to combine this if else with the one above at the cost
> > of duplicating the if (ret < 0) check.  
> 
> OK, I'm fine with either approach.
> 
> > > +		cpu_to_be32_array(new_custom->table, new_custom->table, n_entries);  
> > 
> > I completely failed to register the hand coded big endian conversion.  Nice
> > tidy up.  However, definitely something to call out in the patch description.  
> 
> See above.
> 
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		for (index = 0; index < n_entries; index++) {
> > > +			u64 temp = ((u64 *)new_custom->table)[index];
> > >  
> > >  			if ((index % 2) != 0)
> > >  				temp = __convert_to_raw(temp, 1024);
> > > @@ -445,16 +459,9 @@ static struct ltc2983_custom_sensor *__ltc2983_custom_sensor_new(
> > >  				temp = __convert_to_raw_sign(temp, resolution);
> > >  			else
> > >  				temp = __convert_to_raw(temp, resolution);
> > > -		} else {
> > > -			u32 t32;
> > >  
> > > -			of_property_read_u32_index(np, propname, index, &t32);
> > > -			temp = t32;
> > > +			put_unaligned_be24(temp, new_custom->table + index * 3);
> > >  		}
> > > -
> > > -		for (j = 0; j < n_size; j++)
> > > -			new_custom->table[tbl++] =
> > > -				temp >> (8 * (n_size - j - 1));
> > >  	}  
> 
> ...
> 
> > >  		if (IS_ERR(rtd->custom)) {
> > > -			of_node_put(phandle);
> > > +			fwnode_handle_put(ref);  
> > 
> > I guess there was a bunch of cut and paste in this driver ;) Same question as below
> > on whether we can just use a goto here to share the put in the fail path.  
> 
> Probably as separate (preparatory) patch?

Perfect

> 
> > >  			return ERR_CAST(rtd->custom);
> > >  		}  
> 
> ...
> 
> > >  		if (IS_ERR(thermistor->custom)) {
> > > -			of_node_put(phandle);
> > > +			fwnode_handle_put(ref);
> > >  			return ERR_CAST(thermistor->custom);  
> > 
> > Obviously not due to this patch, but this is odd.  Why have one error path
> > that doesn't use the goto faill;?
> > If you could tidy that up and add a note on it to the patch description
> > that would be great.  
> 
> Same answer as above.
> 
> > >  		}  
> 

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] iio: temperature: ltc2983: Make use of device properties

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 12:51:00PM +0000, Sa, Nuno wrote:
> > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 5, 2022 7:24 PM
> > On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 05:14:54PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Thu,  3 Feb 2022 13:45:06 +0200
> > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> > > > +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
> > > > +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> > 
> > > This may well be a valid addition but it's not called out in the patch
> > > description.
> > 
> > This is a side effect of the change. Below I will try to explain, tell me if
> > that is what you want to be added to the commit message (feel free to
> > correct
> > my English).
> > 
> > The conversion slightly changes the logic behind property reading for
> > the
> > configuration values. Original code allocates just as much memory as
> > needed.
> > Then for each separate 32- or 64-bit value it reads it from the property
> > and converts to a raw one which will be fed to the sensor. In the new
> > code
> > we allocated the amount of memory needed to retrieve all values at
> > once from
> > the property and then convert them as required.
> 
> Yeah, I understood what you are doing... We allocate some extra bytes so
> that we can simplify a lot the logic to get, convert and put back the properties
> in the table... And since we are only writing the __real__ table size into the device
> I'm fairly positive this works. However, I do agree with Jonathan and I would
> be more confident to give this a test before being applied...
> 
> That said, I'm off till the end of the month (just doing minor stuff like replying
> to emails :)), so if we can hold this one, I will test it first thing I'm back in the
> office.

Will wait for your testing. Meanwhile I address all other comments and send v3
for further review.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko