Re: IIO comments

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 17 March 2011, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 03/17/11 17:51, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> > I don't completely understand the notation. Regarding the various
> > {in0, in1, in2, ...} inputs, is there a fundamental difference between
> > them? In the code example I gave, a driver would simply list
> > a set of inputs of the same type (IIO_CHAN_IN) and let the core
> > enumerate them. What does "in0-in1" mean?
>
> in0-in1 is a differential adc channel. Literally outputs value on
> physical pin 1 subtracted from physical pin 2.

Ok, I see. So these would be fairly hard to enumerate, right?
Would it be possible to have one attribute with named "diff%d"
and another attribute associated with it that describes which
channels are compared?

> >> It would be interesting to work out what the minumum structure
> >> required to generate everything associated with a given channel
> >> actually looks like...
> >>
> >> struct CHAN {
> >>        enum CHAN_TYPE type;
> >>        int index;  (x = 0, y = 1 etc).
> > 
> > Do you have drivers that have sparse indices? The core could simply
> > enumerate them when it encounters channels of the same type for
> > one device.
>
> Sadly yes we do.  Some IMUs have 3D accelerometer and 2D gyros.

Ok, I see. So you might have {x0,y0} for one sensor but {x1,y1,z1}
for the other one, right?
 
> > I don't think you need many function pointers. Having a function
> > pointer in struct chan is may be a good idea, but if you have
> > ten inputs that are all alike, they can all point to the same
> > function, right?
> Agreed. I had them in there originally but decided it was getting rather
> clunky. In a sense this will look a little like taking the current
> huge attribute tables and breaking them up into bits associated with
> each channel.  We may want a certain amount of 'private_data' space
> in the channel array as well to allow for things like addresses.  Not
> sure on that yet though.

Makes sense. So you either need a private-data pointer for each
element and point that to another static data structure, or you
need two arrays of different structures but using the same indices.

I think both ways would work, but it would be nice to come up with
a cleaner solution.

Maybe it could be an anonymous union of an unsigned long and a
pointer, so you can initialize either of the two members, depending
on how complex the driver needs it.
 
> > Ok. I truely hope that most hardware has something like this, but
> > we can probably work around it as explained above if not.
>
> Yes. Though do beware. spi and i2c buses for some of these things
> can be 'very' slow and often congested on the actual boards. Hence
> we sometimes spend a lot of effort to avoid transactions.

Do the transactions require spinning on the CPU, or do they
always  work in the background when they are slow?
 
> >> For simplicity of review I'm tempted to go with 1 and make the a
> >> requirement of all drivers unless someone comes up with a very
> >> good reason why we need this functionality.
> > 
> > I would argue for a combination of 1 & 2. Configuring which of the
> > two interrupts you want would be determined by the real-time and/or
> > power management requirements, but should not be visible to the
> > application reading the data, only when setting up the device.
> I'd prefer to allow some direct control. There are use cases where
> for filtering purposes you are only interested in a particular
> length block of data. Still, that control may be the exception
> rather than rule.  Lets just turn on the 50% by default then
> vast majority of users won't ever touch it!

Ok.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/