Re: [PATCH] iio: light: acpi-als: Add IO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET/SCALE to mask.
From: Gwendal Grignou
Date: Fri Oct 21 2016 - 12:44:10 EST
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Enric Balletbo i Serra
<enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> According the ACPI specification (Version 5.0 Errata A) [1], the data
> coming from the sensor represent the ambient light illuminance reading
> expressed in lux. Unfortunately ACPI interface doesn't provide a
> mechanism to calibrate this value, so this raw value can be slightly
> wrong.
>
> This patch adds IIO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET and IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE attributes
> to give the possibiity to the userspace to calculate a calibrated data
> by doing:
>
> (raw_value + offset) * scale = calibrated_value (in lux)
>
> [1] http://www.acpi.info/DOWNLOADS/ACPI_5_Errata%20A.pdf
>
> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/light/acpi-als.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/acpi-als.c b/drivers/iio/light/acpi-als.c
> index f0b47c5..a8093ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/light/acpi-als.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/light/acpi-als.c
> @@ -56,7 +56,9 @@ static const struct iio_chan_spec acpi_als_channels[] = {
> },
> /* _RAW is here for backward ABI compatibility */
> .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) |
> - BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED),
> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED) |
> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE) |
> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET),
> },
> };
>
> @@ -76,6 +78,10 @@ struct acpi_als {
> struct mutex lock;
>
> s32 evt_buffer[ACPI_ALS_EVT_BUFFER_SIZE];
> +
> + int scale;
> + int uscale;
> + int offset;
> };
>
> /*
> @@ -154,25 +160,64 @@ static int acpi_als_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> s32 temp_val;
> int ret;
>
> - if ((mask != IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED) && (mask != IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW))
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> /* we support only illumination (_ALI) so far. */
> if (chan->type != IIO_LIGHT)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - ret = acpi_als_read_value(als, ACPI_ALS_ILLUMINANCE, &temp_val);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> + switch (mask) {
> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED:
It seems PROCESSED is identical to RAW. Shouldn't we remove this attribute?
> + ret = acpi_als_read_value(als, ACPI_ALS_ILLUMINANCE, &temp_val);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + *val = temp_val;
> + return IIO_VAL_INT;
> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET:
> + mutex_lock(&als->lock);
> + *val = als->offset;
> + mutex_unlock(&als->lock);
> + return IIO_VAL_INT;
> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
> + mutex_lock(&als->lock);
> + *val = als->scale;
> + *val2 = als->uscale;
> + mutex_unlock(&als->lock);
> + return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;
> + default:
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +}
>
> - *val = temp_val;
> +static int acpi_als_write_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> + struct iio_chan_spec const *chan, int val,
> + int val2, long mask)
> +{
> + struct acpi_als *als = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> +
> + if (chan->type != IIO_LIGHT)
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> - return IIO_VAL_INT;
> + switch (mask) {
> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET:
> + mutex_lock(&als->lock);
> + als->offset = val;
> + mutex_unlock(&als->lock);
> + return 0;
> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
> + mutex_lock(&als->lock);
> + als->scale = val;
> + als->uscale = val2;
> + mutex_unlock(&als->lock);
> + return 0;
> + default:
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> }
>
> static const struct iio_info acpi_als_info = {
> .driver_module = THIS_MODULE,
> .read_raw = acpi_als_read_raw,
> + .write_raw = acpi_als_write_raw,
> };
>
> static int acpi_als_add(struct acpi_device *device)
> @@ -189,6 +234,9 @@ static int acpi_als_add(struct acpi_device *device)
>
> device->driver_data = indio_dev;
> als->device = device;
> + als->scale = 1;
> + als->uscale = 0;
> + als->offset = 0;
> mutex_init(&als->lock);
>
> indio_dev->name = ACPI_ALS_DEVICE_NAME;
> --
> 2.1.0
>