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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
> 
> > >  		}  
>