Re: [PATCH] x86/platform: (TS-5500) revised ADC driver

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:35:51PM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:54:08 -0500,
> Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:36:46 -0800,
> > Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> > > > > Regarding the location, I'd really like to know from the
> > > > > powers-that-be if arch/x86/platform/ts5500/
> > > > > or
> > > > > 	drivers/platform/x86
> > > > > or
> > > > > 	drivers/hwmon
> > > > > 
> > > > > would be the appropriate location for a driver like this. As
> > > > > mentioned before, my strong preference is drivers/hwmon, but I
> > > > > would like to hear from others.
> > > > 
> > > > We should either split every driver into corresponding
> > > > subdirectories, or put everything in a common platform directory.
> > > > My first RFC patches set has every driver separated. As they are
> > > > really specific to the platform, people seem to agree with
> > > > grouping them, mainly because they won't be shared. I changed
> > > > that in the following patches sets, and X86 maintainers seemed to
> > > > be ok with that.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm ok with both solutions, but we should all agree on one.
> > > > Maybe we should have other maintainers view on this?
> > > > 
> > > That is what I had asked for. I thought the whole point of
> > > per-module directories was to have all drivers there. If that is no
> > > longer true, fine with me; who am I to argue about something like
> > > that. I'd just like to know.
> > > 
> > > > > Also, I am not sure if the current approach is appropriate to
> > > > > start with. Looking at the datasheet as well as into existing
> > > > > kernel code, it appears quite likely that some kind of more or
> > > > > less generic MAX197 driver exists somewhere. The existence of
> > > > > is_max197_installed() - without any calling code - is a strong
> > > > > indication that this is the case, as well as the "static"
> > > > > platform data in your original patch. It might be more
> > > > > appropriate to take this more or less generic driver, move it to
> > > > > drivers/hwmon, and provide - for example through platform data -
> > > > > a means to read from and write to the chip on a per-platform
> > > > > basis, ie with per-platform access functions.
> > > > 
> > > > You're right, it should be possible to create a generic max197
> > > > driver and provide read/write functions through platform data. But
> > > > we don't have a max197 right now... So it can stay as a compact
> > > > TS-5500 ADC driver for the moment, and maybe we will split later.
> > > > What do you think?
> > > > 
> > > I am lost. If you don't have a TS-5500 with max197, how do you test
> > > the driver ?
> > 
> > Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the only max197 I have is the one
> > behind the TS-5500 CPLD, I don't have any others to test
> > independently.
> > 
> > > I had another look into the MAX197 and TS-5500 data sheets. In my
> > > opinion, a generic MAX197 driver in drivers/hwmon combined with a
> > > platform driver in the current location would be the way to go. That
> > > driver would then also work for the other TS-5x00 systems. All you
> > > need is a single chip access function in the platform code, since
> > > the chip is always accessed with a write followed by a read.
> > 
> > I took a deeper look at the datasheets, and you're right, a MAX197
> > driver seems to be a good choice. However, there are a number of
> > differences between a direct usage of a MAX197 and the TS-5500 mapped
> > MAX197.
> > 
> > To start a conversion of a channel for a given range and polarity, it
> > consists on both sides of a u8 outb() call on pins 7-14 (i.e. bits
> > D7-D0). To be notified when the result is ready, we can either set an
> > IRQ on INT pin (falling edge), or poll it.
> > Then on the MAX197, you read the pins 7-14, set pin HBEN to 1, and
> > read the same pins again to get the 4 remaining bits. On the TS-5500,
> > only polling is available, and the 12 bits are mapped on 2 registers.
> > 
> > I propose to write a max197 driver with default read and write
> > functions. A platform_data will be used to specify the base address
> > (pins 7-14), and eventually a custom read function pointer, which will
> > be used instead of the default one if it is different of NULL.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > I will write a max197 driver with default read and write functions. A
> > platform_data will be used to specify the base address (pins 7-14),
> > and eventually a custom read function pointer, which will be used
> > instead of the default, if it is not NULL.
> > 
> > What do you think? 
> 
Sounds like a plan to me.

> Sorry for the duplicate :)
> 
> BTW, I've added Jean Delvare and the lm-sensors mailing list in Cc, in
> case they have an opinion on this.
> 

Thanks,
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/