Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] Add support for Awinic proximity sensor

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 12/07/2024 13:32, wangshuaijie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: shuaijie wang <wangshuaijie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 1. Modify the structure of the driver.
> 2. Change the style of the driver's comments.
> 3. Remove unnecessary log printing.
> 4. Modify the function used for memory allocation.
> 5. Modify the driver registration process.
> 6. Remove the functionality related to updating firmware.
> 7. Change the input subsystem in the driver to the iio subsystem.
> 8. Modify the usage of the interrupt pin.

I don't understand why do you put some sort of changelog into commit
msg. Please read submitting patches.

> 
> Signed-off-by: shuaijie wang <wangshuaijie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---

Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem. You can get them for
example with `git log --oneline -- DIRECTORY_OR_FILE` on the directory
your patch is touching. For bindings, the preferred subjects are
explained here:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.html#i-for-patch-submitters

>  drivers/iio/proximity/Kconfig                 |   10 +
>  drivers/iio/proximity/Makefile                |    2 +
>  drivers/iio/proximity/aw9610x.c               | 1150 ++++++++++
>  drivers/iio/proximity/aw963xx.c               | 1371 ++++++++++++
>  drivers/iio/proximity/aw_sar.c                | 1850 +++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/iio/proximity/aw_sar.h                |   23 +
>  drivers/iio/proximity/aw_sar_comm_interface.c |  550 +++++
>  drivers/iio/proximity/aw_sar_comm_interface.h |  172 ++
>  drivers/iio/proximity/aw_sar_type.h           |  371 ++++
>  9 files changed, 5499 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/iio/proximity/aw9610x.c
>  create mode 100644 drivers/iio/proximity/aw963xx.c
>  create mode 100644 drivers/iio/proximity/aw_sar.c
>  create mode 100644 drivers/iio/proximity/aw_sar.h
>  create mode 100644 drivers/iio/proximity/aw_sar_comm_interface.c
>  create mode 100644 drivers/iio/proximity/aw_sar_comm_interface.h
>  create mode 100644 drivers/iio/proximity/aw_sar_type.h
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/proximity/Kconfig b/drivers/iio/proximity/Kconfig
> index 2ca3b0bc5eba..a60d3dc955b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/proximity/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/iio/proximity/Kconfig
> @@ -219,4 +219,14 @@ config VL53L0X_I2C
>  	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the
>  	  module will be called vl53l0x-i2c.
>  
> +config AWINIC_SAR
> +	tristate "Awinic AW96XXX proximity sensor"
> +	depends on I2C
> +	help
> +	  Say Y here to build a driver for Awinic's AW96XXX capacitive
> +	  proximity sensor.
> +
> +	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the
> +	  module will be called awinic_sar.
> +
>  endmenu
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/proximity/Makefile b/drivers/iio/proximity/Makefile
> index f36598380446..d4bd9edd8362 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/proximity/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/iio/proximity/Makefile
> @@ -21,4 +21,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SX_COMMON) 	+= sx_common.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_SX9500)		+= sx9500.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_VCNL3020)		+= vcnl3020.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_VL53L0X_I2C)	+= vl53l0x-i2c.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_AWINIC_SAR)	+= awinic_sar.o
> +awinic_sar-objs			:= aw_sar_comm_interface.o aw_sar.o aw9610x.o aw963xx.o
>  



> +
> +static void aw_sar_power_deinit(struct aw_sar *p_sar)
> +{
> +	if (p_sar->power_enable) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Turn off the power output. However,
> +		 * it may not be turned off immediately
> +		 * There are scenes where power sharing can exist
> +		 */
> +		regulator_disable(p_sar->vcc);
> +		regulator_put(p_sar->vcc);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void aw_sar_power_enable(struct aw_sar *p_sar, bool on)
> +{
> +	int rc;
> +
> +	if (on) {
> +		rc = regulator_enable(p_sar->vcc);
> +		if (rc) {
> +			dev_err(p_sar->dev, "regulator_enable vol failed rc = %d", rc);

Again example of ugly code.

> +		} else {
> +			p_sar->power_enable = AW_TRUE;

NAK.

All this driver is some ancient, downstream or user-space-generic-code.
Sorry, you already got such comment.

First, your control of power seems like entire code is spaghetti.
Basically, your control flow is random, no functions know when they are
called. To solve this, you introduce "power_enable" so the functions can
figure out if they are called with power enabled or not.

That's just crappy and spaghetti design.

This redefinition of true and false is a cherry on top. DO NOT EVER send
such code. NEVER.

You must clean up all such user-space/Windows/whatever you have there stuff.

> +			msleep(20);
> +		}
> +	} else {
> +		rc = regulator_disable(p_sar->vcc);
> +		if (rc)
> +			dev_err(p_sar->dev, "regulator_disable vol failed rc = %d", rc);
> +		else
> +			p_sar->power_enable = AW_FALSE;
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static int regulator_is_get_voltage(struct aw_sar *p_sar)
> +{
> +	unsigned int cnt = 10;
> +	int voltage_val;
> +
> +	while (cnt--) {
> +		voltage_val = regulator_get_voltage(p_sar->vcc);

What is that?

Did you just forgot to set proper ramp delays?

> +		if (voltage_val >= AW_SAR_VCC_MIN_UV)
> +			return 0;
> +		mdelay(1);
> +	}
> +	/* Ensure that the chip initialization is completed */
> +	msleep(20);
> +
> +	return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +/* AW_SAR_REGULATOR_POWER_ON end */


...

> +static int aw_sar_regulator_power(struct aw_sar *p_sar)
> +{
> +	struct aw_sar_dts_info *p_dts_info = &p_sar->dts_info;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	p_dts_info->use_regulator_flag =
> +		of_property_read_bool(p_sar->i2c->dev.of_node, "awinic,regulator-power-supply");
> +
> +	/* Configure the use of regulator power supply in DTS */
> +	if (p_sar->dts_info.use_regulator_flag == true) {
> +		ret = aw_sar_regulator_power_init(p_sar);
> +		if (ret != 0) {
> +			dev_err(p_sar->dev, "power init failed");
> +			return ret;
> +		}
> +		aw_sar_power_enable(p_sar, AW_TRUE);
> +		ret = regulator_is_get_voltage(p_sar);
> +		if (ret != 0) {
> +			dev_err(p_sar->dev, "get_voltage failed");
> +			aw_sar_power_deinit(p_sar);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int aw_sar_get_chip_info(struct aw_sar *p_sar)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	unsigned char i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < AW_SAR_DRIVER_MAX; i++) {
> +		if (g_aw_sar_driver_list[i].p_who_am_i != NULL) {

Sorry, this overall code is just ugly and with poor readability.
Variables like "g_aw_sar_driver_list" are just not helping.

The driver is really huge for a "simple" proximity sensor, so I wonder
if this was somehow over-engineered or is not really simple, but quite
complex sensor.

Anyway, huge driver with poor code is not helping to review.


> +
> +
> +/* Drive logic entry */
> +static int aw_sar_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> +{
> +	struct iio_dev *sar_iio_dev;
> +	struct aw_sar *p_sar;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (!i2c_check_functionality(i2c->adapter, I2C_FUNC_I2C)) {
> +		pr_err("check_functionality failed!\n");
> +		return -EIO;
> +	}
> +
> +	sar_iio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(&i2c->dev, sizeof(*p_sar));
> +	if (!sar_iio_dev)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	p_sar = iio_priv(sar_iio_dev);
> +	p_sar->aw_iio_dev = sar_iio_dev;
> +	p_sar->dev = &i2c->dev;
> +	p_sar->i2c = i2c;
> +	i2c_set_clientdata(i2c, p_sar);
> +
> +	/* 1.Judge whether to use regular power supply. If yes, supply power */
> +	ret = aw_sar_regulator_power(p_sar);
> +	if (ret != 0) {
> +		dev_err(&i2c->dev, "regulator_power error!");
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* 2.Get chip initialization resources */
> +	ret = aw_sar_get_chip_info(p_sar);
> +	if (ret != 0) {
> +		dev_err(&i2c->dev, "chip_init error!");

Not much improved.


<form letter>
This is a friendly reminder during the review process.

It seems my or other reviewer's previous comments were not fully
addressed. Maybe the feedback got lost between the quotes, maybe you
just forgot to apply it. Please go back to the previous discussion and
either implement all requested changes or keep discussing them.

Thank you.
</form letter>

> +
> +static const struct dev_pm_ops aw_sar_pm_ops = {
> +	.suspend = aw_sar_suspend,
> +	.resume = aw_sar_resume,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id aw_sar_dt_match[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "awinic,aw96103" },
> +	{ .compatible = "awinic,aw96105" },
> +	{ .compatible = "awinic,aw96303" },
> +	{ .compatible = "awinic,aw96305" },
> +	{ .compatible = "awinic,aw96308" },
> +	{ },
> +};
> +
> +static const struct i2c_device_id aw_sar_i2c_id[] = {
> +	{ AW_SAR_I2C_NAME, 0 },

Having device_id tables not in sync is usually bad sign. Why do you need
i2c_device_id in the first place?

> +	{ },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, aw_sar_i2c_id);
> +
> +static struct i2c_driver aw_sar_i2c_driver = {
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name = AW_SAR_I2C_NAME,
> +		.of_match_table = aw_sar_dt_match,
> +		.pm = &aw_sar_pm_ops,
> +	},
> +	.probe = aw_sar_i2c_probe,
> +	.remove = aw_sar_i2c_remove,
> +	.shutdown = aw_sar_i2c_shutdown,
> +	.id_table = aw_sar_i2c_id,
> +};
> +module_i2c_driver(aw_sar_i2c_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("AWINIC SAR Driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> +MODULE_IMPORT_NS(AWINIC_PROX);



Best regards,
Krzysztof