Re: [PATCH 12/12] iio: adc: adi-axi-adc: move to backend framework

[Nuno Sá]

On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 17:33 -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 4:17 AM Nuno Sa via B4 Relay
> <devnull+nuno.sa.analog.com@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > From: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Move to the IIO backend framework. Devices supported by adi-axi-adc now
> > register themselves as backend devices.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig       |   1 +
> >  drivers/iio/adc/adi-axi-adc.c | 364 ++++++++----------------------------------
> >  2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig b/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig
> > index af56df63beff..cc42a3399c63 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig
> > @@ -292,6 +292,7 @@ config ADI_AXI_ADC
> >         select IIO_BUFFER
> >         select IIO_BUFFER_HW_CONSUMER
> >         select IIO_BUFFER_DMAENGINE
> > +       select IIO_BACKEND
> >         depends on HAS_IOMEM
> >         depends on OF
> >         help
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/adi-axi-adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/adi-axi-adc.c
> > index c247ff1541d2..b2ab2c119efa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/adi-axi-adc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/adi-axi-adc.c
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > @@ -390,37 +166,23 @@ static int adi_axi_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >         if (ret)
> >                 return ret;
> > 
> > -       if (cl->info->version > ver) {
> > +       if (*expected_ver > ver) {
> >                 dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> >                         "IP core version is too old. Expected %d.%.2d.%c,
> > Reported %d.%.2d.%c\n",
> > -                       ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MAJOR(cl->info->version),
> > -                       ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MINOR(cl->info->version),
> > -                       ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_PATCH(cl->info->version),
> > +                       ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MAJOR(*expected_ver),
> > +                       ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MINOR(*expected_ver),
> > +                       ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_PATCH(*expected_ver),
> >                         ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MAJOR(ver),
> >                         ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_MINOR(ver),
> >                         ADI_AXI_PCORE_VER_PATCH(ver));
> >                 return -ENODEV;
> >         }
> > 
> > -       indio_dev->info = &adi_axi_adc_info;
> > -       indio_dev->name = "adi-axi-adc";
> > -       indio_dev->modes = INDIO_DIRECT_MODE;
> > -       indio_dev->num_channels = conv->chip_info->num_channels;
> > -       indio_dev->channels = conv->chip_info->channels;
> > -
> > -       ret = adi_axi_adc_config_dma_buffer(&pdev->dev, indio_dev);
> > +       ret = devm_iio_backend_register(&pdev->dev, &adi_axi_adc_generic, st);
> >         if (ret)
> >                 return ret;
> > 
> > -       ret = adi_axi_adc_setup_channels(&pdev->dev, st);
> > -       if (ret)
> > -               return ret;
> > -
> > -       ret = devm_iio_device_register(&pdev->dev, indio_dev);
> > -       if (ret)
> > -               return ret;
> > -
> > -       dev_info(&pdev->dev, "AXI ADC IP core (%d.%.2d.%c) probed\n",
> > +       dev_info(&pdev->dev, "AXI ADC IP core (%d.%.2d.%d) probed\n",
> 
> Was this format change intentional? There are other places above where
> %c is still used.
> 

Yes, the output was weird with %c. I guess something changed... Hmm need to look at
the other places.

- Nuno Sá
>