Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] iio/scmi: Adding support for IIO SCMI Based Sensors

From: Jonathan Cameron
Date: Fri Feb 12 2021 - 14:19:53 EST

Next message: Mike Kravetz: "Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] userfaultfd: add minor fault registration mode"
Previous message: kernel test robot: "ll_temac_main.c:undefined reference to `devm_platform_ioremap_resource_byname'"
In reply to: Cristian Marussi: "Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] iio/scmi: Adding support for IIO SCMI Based Sensors"
Next in thread: Cristian Marussi: "Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] iio/scmi: Adding support for IIO SCMI Based Sensors"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 21:46:19 +0000
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Jyoti,
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:19:35AM -0800, Jyoti Bhayana wrote:
> > Hi Cristian,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback. Regarding registering callbacks at the probe time
> > instead of .preenable, I have tried it before but I think due to some
> > issues(don't remember it now maybe on the platform side) I kept it at the
> > .preenable level.
> >
> > But you are right, that it will be nice to move it at the probe level
> > instead. I will try again and test if it works and would move it at the
> > probe level. Regarding the unregistering of the notifier, is it required at
> > the remove of iio driver or scmi driver will take care of it?
> > Because if I add unregister at the iio driver remove level, I would have to
> > iterate all the sensors again and unregister them.
>
> Yes you are right if you move callbacks registration once for all to the
> .probe step you'll have to unregister them all in a .remove.
>
> BUT I think instead you should stick with your current solution given
> it's working fine anyway and it's supported by the notification
> framework and also for another reason I'm going to explain down below
> (which is also the reason why I asked you this at first :D)
>
> As you may remember I'm refactoring all the SCMI internals in a separate
> series to ease modularization and vendor protocols support, and that will
> lead also to some changes in the SCMI driver interface that you use:
> amongst other things one interesting addition will be a new devres managed
> notification registration method, something like:
>
> handle->notify_ops->devm_register_notifier(sdev, ...);
>
> With such method you could just move your registration to the .probe
> step and just forget about it, without the need to add any unregistration
> in the .remove step, since the core will take care to remove all the
> callbacks at driver unloading time.
>
> Now, this series, which is here if you want to have a look:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210202221555.41167-1-cristian.marussi@xxxxxxx/
>
> is already taking care to port any existent SCMI driver to the new interface,
> so when your IIODEV SCMI driver will be finally queued somewhere for merge, I
> can in turn rebase my series on yours and take care to port your driver too to
> the new interface applying the changes above in the context of my series.
> (and ask you to review of course :D)

I'm guessing you probably want this driver in an immutable branch then
rather than having to wait another cycle for it to tick through to a
a sensible upstream?

Jonathan

>
> I'm saying that is better if you keep your series as it is for now
> (old interface + .preenable/.postdisable regs/unregs) because, as said,
> with the new interface the devm_ methods will ease the registration
> @probe time, and also especially because the new interface is not (and
> most probably won't) be part of the v5.4 backport that you are testing
> against: so if you stick with your current solution you'll have a
> working patch easily backportable now, and once queued I'll port it to
> the interface using devm_ (so simplifying it)
>
> In this context, it would be indeed important to know if in general moving
> registration to the probe phase (which should be fine by the spec) poses
> any kind of problem. (and that's reason why asked it)
>
> Hope to have been clear despite the flood of words :D
>
> Thanks
>
> Cristian
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jyoti
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 3:56 AM Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@xxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jyoti
> > >
> > > some minor things down below.
> > >
> > > Other than that, FWIW about the SCMI side of this:
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Cristian
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 09:19:18PM +0000, Jyoti Bhayana wrote:
> > > > This change provides ARM SCMI Protocol based IIO device.
> > > > This driver provides support for Accelerometer and Gyroscope using
> > > > SCMI Sensor Protocol extensions added in the SCMIv3.0 ARM specification
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jyoti Bhayana <jbhayana@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > MAINTAINERS | 6 +
> > > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/iio/common/Kconfig | 1 +
> > > > drivers/iio/common/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Kconfig | 18 +
> > > > drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Makefile | 5 +
> > > > drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/scmi_iio.c | 673 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 7 files changed, 705 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > create mode 100644 drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Kconfig
> > > > create mode 100644 drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Makefile
> > > > create mode 100644 drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/scmi_iio.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > > > index b516bb34a8d5..ccf37d43ab41 100644
> > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > > > @@ -8567,6 +8567,12 @@ S: Maintained
> > > > F:
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/multiplexer/io-channel-mux.txt
> > > > F: drivers/iio/multiplexer/iio-mux.c
> > > >
> > > > +IIO SCMI BASED DRIVER
> > > > +M: Jyoti Bhayana <jbhayana@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > +L: linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > +S: Maintained
> > > > +F: drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/scmi_iio.c
> > > > +
> > > > IIO SUBSYSTEM AND DRIVERS
> > > > M: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > R: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c
> > > b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c
> > > > index 5392e1fc6b4e..248313bbd473 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c
> > > > @@ -741,7 +741,7 @@ static struct scmi_prot_devnames devnames[] = {
> > > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_SYSTEM, { "syspower" },},
> > > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF, { "cpufreq" },},
> > > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_CLOCK, { "clocks" },},
> > > > - { SCMI_PROTOCOL_SENSOR, { "hwmon" },},
> > > > + { SCMI_PROTOCOL_SENSOR, { "hwmon", "iiodev" },},
> > > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_RESET, { "reset" },},
> > > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_VOLTAGE, { "regulator" },},
> > > > };
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/Kconfig b/drivers/iio/common/Kconfig
> > > > index 2b9ee9161abd..0334b4954773 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/iio/common/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/common/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -6,5 +6,6 @@
> > > > source "drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/Kconfig"
> > > > source "drivers/iio/common/hid-sensors/Kconfig"
> > > > source "drivers/iio/common/ms_sensors/Kconfig"
> > > > +source "drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Kconfig"
> > > > source "drivers/iio/common/ssp_sensors/Kconfig"
> > > > source "drivers/iio/common/st_sensors/Kconfig"
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/Makefile b/drivers/iio/common/Makefile
> > > > index 4bc30bb548e2..fad40e1e1718 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/iio/common/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/common/Makefile
> > > > @@ -11,5 +11,6 @@
> > > > obj-y += cros_ec_sensors/
> > > > obj-y += hid-sensors/
> > > > obj-y += ms_sensors/
> > > > +obj-y += scmi_sensors/
> > > > obj-y += ssp_sensors/
> > > > obj-y += st_sensors/
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Kconfig
> > > b/drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Kconfig
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..67e084cbb1ab
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> > > > +#
> > > > +# IIO over SCMI
> > > > +#
> > > > +# When adding new entries keep the list in alphabetical order
> > > > +
> > > > +menu "IIO SCMI Sensors"
> > > > +
> > > > +config IIO_SCMI
> > > > + tristate "IIO SCMI"
> > > > + depends on ARM_SCMI_PROTOCOL
> > > > + select IIO_BUFFER
> > > > + select IIO_KFIFO_BUF
> > > > + help
> > > > + Say yes here to build support for IIO SCMI Driver.
> > > > + This provides ARM SCMI Protocol based IIO device.
> > > > + This driver provides support for accelerometer and gyroscope
> > > > + sensors available on SCMI based platforms.
> > > > +endmenu
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Makefile
> > > b/drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Makefile
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..f13140a2575a
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/Makefile
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> > > > +# SPDX - License - Identifier : GPL - 2.0 - only
> > > > +#
> > > > +# Makefile for the IIO over SCMI
> > > > +#
> > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_IIO_SCMI) += scmi_iio.o
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/scmi_iio.c
> > > b/drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/scmi_iio.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..093b1fc24e27
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/scmi_iio.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,673 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * System Control and Management Interface(SCMI) based IIO sensor driver
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Copyright (C) 2021 Google LLC
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/err.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/iio/buffer.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/iio/iio.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/iio/kfifo_buf.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/iio/sysfs.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/kthread.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/scmi_protocol.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/time.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#define SCMI_IIO_NUM_OF_AXIS 3
> > > > +
> > > > +struct scmi_iio_priv {
> > > > + struct scmi_handle *handle;
> > > > + const struct scmi_sensor_info *sensor_info;
> > > > + struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
> > > > + /* adding one additional channel for timestamp */
> > > > + long long iio_buf[SCMI_IIO_NUM_OF_AXIS + 1];
> > > > + struct notifier_block sensor_update_nb;
> > > > + u32 *freq_avail;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static int scmi_iio_sensor_update_cb(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > > > + unsigned long event, void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct scmi_sensor_update_report *sensor_update = data;
> > > > + struct iio_dev *scmi_iio_dev;
> > > > + struct scmi_iio_priv *sensor;
> > > > + s8 tstamp_scale;
> > > > + u64 time, time_ns;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (sensor_update->readings_count == 0)
> > > > + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> > > > +
> > > > + sensor = container_of(nb, struct scmi_iio_priv, sensor_update_nb);
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < sensor_update->readings_count; i++)
> > > > + sensor->iio_buf[i] = sensor_update->readings[i].value;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!sensor->sensor_info->timestamped) {
> > > > + time_ns = ktime_to_ns(sensor_update->timestamp);
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * All the axes are supposed to have the same value for
> > > timestamp.
> > > > + * We are just using the values from the Axis 0 here.
> > > > + */
> > > > + time = sensor_update->readings[0].timestamp;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Timestamp returned by SCMI is in seconds and is equal
> > > to
> > > > + * time * power-of-10 multiplier(tstamp_scale) seconds.
> > > > + * Converting the timestamp to nanoseconds below.
> > > > + */
> > > > + tstamp_scale = sensor->sensor_info->tstamp_scale +
> > > > + const_ilog2(NSEC_PER_SEC) / const_ilog2(10);
> > > > + if (tstamp_scale < 0)
> > > > + time_ns =
> > > > + div64_u64(time, int_pow(10,
> > > abs(tstamp_scale)));
> > > > + else
> > > > + time_ns = time * int_pow(10, tstamp_scale);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + scmi_iio_dev = sensor->indio_dev;
> > > > + iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(scmi_iio_dev, sensor->iio_buf,
> > > > + time_ns);
> > > > + return NOTIFY_OK;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int scmi_iio_buffer_preenable(struct iio_dev *iio_dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct scmi_iio_priv *sensor = iio_priv(iio_dev);
> > > > + u32 sensor_id = sensor->sensor_info->id;
> > > > + u32 sensor_config = 0;
> > > > + int err;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (sensor->sensor_info->timestamped)
> > > > + sensor_config |=
> > > FIELD_PREP(SCMI_SENS_CFG_TSTAMP_ENABLED_MASK,
> > > > + SCMI_SENS_CFG_TSTAMP_ENABLE);
> > > > +
> > > > + sensor_config |= FIELD_PREP(SCMI_SENS_CFG_SENSOR_ENABLED_MASK,
> > > > + SCMI_SENS_CFG_SENSOR_ENABLE);
> > > > +
> > > > + err =
> > > sensor->handle->notify_ops->register_event_notifier(sensor->handle,
> > > > + SCMI_PROTOCOL_SENSOR, SCMI_EVENT_SENSOR_UPDATE,
> > > > + &sensor_id, &sensor->sensor_update_nb);
> > > > + if (err) {
> > > > + dev_err(&iio_dev->dev,
> > > > + "Error in registering sensor update notifier for
> > > sensor %s err %d",
> > > > + sensor->sensor_info->name, err);
> > > > + return err;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + err = sensor->handle->sensor_ops->config_set(sensor->handle,
> > > > + sensor->sensor_info->id, sensor_config);
> > > > + if (err) {
> > > > +
> > > sensor->handle->notify_ops->unregister_event_notifier(sensor->handle,
> > > > + SCMI_PROTOCOL_SENSOR,
> > > > + SCMI_EVENT_SENSOR_UPDATE, &sensor_id,
> > > > + &sensor->sensor_update_nb);
> > > > + dev_err(&iio_dev->dev, "Error in enabling sensor %s err
> > > %d",
> > > > + sensor->sensor_info->name, err);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return err;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int scmi_iio_buffer_postdisable(struct iio_dev *iio_dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct scmi_iio_priv *sensor = iio_priv(iio_dev);
> > > > + u32 sensor_id = sensor->sensor_info->id;
> > > > + u32 sensor_config = 0;
> > > > + int err;
> > > > +
> > > > + sensor_config |= FIELD_PREP(SCMI_SENS_CFG_SENSOR_ENABLED_MASK,
> > > > + SCMI_SENS_CFG_SENSOR_DISABLE);
> > > > +
> > > > + err =
> > > sensor->handle->notify_ops->unregister_event_notifier(sensor->handle,
> > > > + SCMI_PROTOCOL_SENSOR, SCMI_EVENT_SENSOR_UPDATE,
> > > > + &sensor_id, &sensor->sensor_update_nb);
> > > > + if (err) {
> > > > + dev_err(&iio_dev->dev,
> > > > + "Error in unregistering sensor update notifier for
> > > sensor %s err %d",
> > > > + sensor->sensor_info->name, err);
> > > > + return err;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + err = sensor->handle->sensor_ops->config_set(sensor->handle,
> > > sensor_id,
> > > > + sensor_config);
> > > > + if (err) {
> > > > + dev_err(&iio_dev->dev,
> > > > + "Error in disabling sensor %s with err %d",
> > > > + sensor->sensor_info->name, err);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return err;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops scmi_iio_buffer_ops = {
> > > > + .preenable = scmi_iio_buffer_preenable,
> > > > + .postdisable = scmi_iio_buffer_postdisable,
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > This is just a question, I'm not suggesting to change anything here at
> > > this point to be clear, since it works just fine as it is.
> > >
> > > Following up a previous email, given these are called on enable/disable
> > > by sysfs, is there a specific reason why you configure here, inside
> > > these ops, also timestamping and callbacks i.e. each time the sensor is
> > > turned on/off by sysfs ? ... instead of just, as an example, enabling
> > > in _preenable the sensor while registering callbacks and enabling
> > > timestamping once for all earlier during probe phase ?
> > > (likewise for _postdisable -> remove)
> > >
> > > AFAIU the spec says notifications are emitted for sensors which has
> > > requested them (via SENSOR_CONTINUOUS_UPDATE_NOTIFY) BUT only if the
> > > sensor is enabled as a whole (via proper CONFIG_SET as you do), so
> > > that enabling/disabling the sensor as a whole should result in starting/
> > > stopping the notification flow without the need of unregistering the
> > > callbacks everytime. (same goes with the timestamping)
> > >
> > > In other words, I would expect the sensor to maintain its state (on the
> > > platform side) even when going through enable/disable cycles, so that
> > > it 'remembers' that timestamping/notifications were enabled across an
> > > on/off.
> > >
> > > This would reduce the number of SCMI messages exchanges between the
> > > kernel and the platform and should be supported by both, but as said,
> > > it's more of a question for the future, not necessarily for this series.
> > >
> > > > +
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > +static int scmi_iio_set_sampling_freq_avail(struct iio_dev *iio_dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + u64 cur_interval_ns, low_interval_ns, high_interval_ns,
> > > step_size_ns,
> > > > + hz, uhz;
> > > > + unsigned int cur_interval, low_interval, high_interval, step_size;
> > > > + struct scmi_iio_priv *sensor = iio_priv(iio_dev);
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + sensor->freq_avail =
> > > > + devm_kzalloc(&iio_dev->dev,
> > > > + sizeof(*sensor->freq_avail) *
> > > > + (sensor->sensor_info->intervals.count
> > > * 2),
> > > > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!sensor->freq_avail)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (sensor->sensor_info->intervals.segmented) {
> > > > + low_interval = sensor->sensor_info->intervals
> > > > + .desc[SCMI_SENS_INTVL_SEGMENT_LOW];
> > > > + low_interval_ns =
> > > scmi_iio_convert_interval_to_ns(low_interval);
> > > > + convert_ns_to_freq(low_interval_ns, &hz, &uhz);
> > > > + sensor->freq_avail[0] = hz;
> > > > + sensor->freq_avail[1] = uhz;
> > > > +
> > > > + step_size = sensor->sensor_info->intervals
> > > > + .desc[SCMI_SENS_INTVL_SEGMENT_STEP];
> > > > + step_size_ns = scmi_iio_convert_interval_to_ns(step_size);
> > > > + convert_ns_to_freq(step_size_ns, &hz, &uhz);
> > > > + sensor->freq_avail[2] = hz;
> > > > + sensor->freq_avail[3] = uhz;
> > > > +
> > > > + high_interval = sensor->sensor_info->intervals
> > > > +
> > > .desc[SCMI_SENS_INTVL_SEGMENT_HIGH];
> > > > + high_interval_ns =
> > > > + scmi_iio_convert_interval_to_ns(high_interval);
> > > > + convert_ns_to_freq(high_interval_ns, &hz, &uhz);
> > > > + sensor->freq_avail[4] = hz;
> > > > + sensor->freq_avail[5] = uhz;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < sensor->sensor_info->intervals.count; i++)
> > > {
> > > > + cur_interval =
> > > sensor->sensor_info->intervals.desc[i];
> > > > + cur_interval_ns =
> > > > +
> > > scmi_iio_convert_interval_to_ns(cur_interval);
> > > > + convert_ns_to_freq(cur_interval_ns, &hz, &uhz);
> > > > + sensor->freq_avail[i * 2] = hz;
> > > > + sensor->freq_avail[i * 2 + 1] = uhz;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int scmi_iio_buffers_setup(struct iio_dev *scmi_iiodev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct iio_buffer *buffer;
> > > > +
> > > > + buffer = devm_iio_kfifo_allocate(&scmi_iiodev->dev);
> > > > + if (!buffer)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > + iio_device_attach_buffer(scmi_iiodev, buffer);
> > > > + scmi_iiodev->modes |= INDIO_BUFFER_SOFTWARE;
> > > > + scmi_iiodev->setup_ops = &scmi_iio_buffer_ops;
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +struct iio_dev *scmi_alloc_iiodev(struct device *dev,
> > > > + struct scmi_handle *handle,
> > > > + const struct scmi_sensor_info
> > > *sensor_info)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct iio_chan_spec *iio_channels;
> > > > + struct scmi_iio_priv *sensor;
> > > > + enum iio_modifier modifier;
> > > > + enum iio_chan_type type;
> > > > + struct iio_dev *iiodev;
> > > > + int i, ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + iiodev = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*sensor));
> > > > + if (!iiodev)
> > > > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > > +
> > > > + iiodev->modes = INDIO_DIRECT_MODE;
> > > > + iiodev->dev.parent = dev;
> > > > + sensor = iio_priv(iiodev);
> > > > + sensor->handle = handle;
> > > > + sensor->sensor_info = sensor_info;
> > > > + sensor->sensor_update_nb.notifier_call = scmi_iio_sensor_update_cb;
> > > > + sensor->indio_dev = iiodev;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* adding one additional channel for timestamp */
> > > > + iiodev->num_channels = sensor_info->num_axis + 1;
> > > > + iiodev->name = sensor_info->name;
> > > > + iiodev->info = &scmi_iio_info;
> > > > +
> > > > + iio_channels =
> > > > + devm_kzalloc(dev,
> > > > + sizeof(*iio_channels) *
> > > (iiodev->num_channels),
> > > > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!iio_channels)
> > > > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > > +
> > > > + scmi_iio_set_sampling_freq_avail(iiodev);
> > >
> > > You don't check this for retval, and it could fail with -ENOMEM.
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < sensor_info->num_axis; i++) {
> > > > + ret = scmi_iio_get_chan_type(sensor_info->axis[i].type,
> > > &type);
> > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > + return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = scmi_iio_get_chan_modifier(sensor_info->axis[i].name,
> > > > + &modifier);
> > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > + return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > > > +
> > > > + scmi_iio_set_data_channel(&iio_channels[i], type, modifier,
> > > > + sensor_info->axis[i].id);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + scmi_iio_set_timestamp_channel(&iio_channels[i], i);
> > > > + iiodev->channels = iio_channels;
> > > > + return iiodev;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > >

Next message: Mike Kravetz: "Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] userfaultfd: add minor fault registration mode"
Previous message: kernel test robot: "ll_temac_main.c:undefined reference to `devm_platform_ioremap_resource_byname'"
In reply to: Cristian Marussi: "Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] iio/scmi: Adding support for IIO SCMI Based Sensors"
Next in thread: Cristian Marussi: "Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] iio/scmi: Adding support for IIO SCMI Based Sensors"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]