On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 01:42:29AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
[...]
> Few minor bits inline... I'm a little bit in two minds about the
> holding up waiting for new data when using another trigger...
>
> Jonathan
[...]
> > static int adxl345_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > @@ -127,6 +151,10 @@ static int adxl345_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> >
> > switch (mask) {
> > case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
> > + ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> > ret = adxl345_set_mode(data, ADXL345_POWER_CTL_MEASURE);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > @@ -148,12 +176,14 @@ static int adxl345_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > ret = regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, chan->address, ®val,
> > sizeof(regval));
> > mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> > + iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > adxl345_set_mode(data, ADXL345_POWER_CTL_STANDBY);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > - *val = sign_extend32(le16_to_cpu(regval), 12);
> > + *val = sign_extend32(le16_to_cpu(regval),
> > + chan->scan_type.realbits - 1)
> This change isn't really needed, but I suppose it does little harm...
>
> > adxl345_set_mode(data, ADXL345_POWER_CTL_STANDBY);
> >
> > return IIO_VAL_INT;
> > @@ -186,6 +216,64 @@ static irqreturn_t adxl345_irq(int irq, void *p)
> > return IRQ_NONE;
> > }
> >
> > +static irqreturn_t adxl345_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p)
> > +{
> > + struct iio_poll_func *pf = p;
> > + struct iio_dev *indio_dev = pf->indio_dev;
> > + struct adxl345_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> > + /* Make sure data is ready when using external trigger */
> I 'think' this is only really relevant for the very first one.
> After that general rule of thumb is that if an external trigger
> is too quick - bad luck you'll get repeated data.
>
> One of the reasons we would want to use another trigger is to
> support capture in parallel from several sensors - if we 'hold'
> like this we'll get out of sync.
>
> As such I wonder if a better strategy would be to 'hold' for the
> first reading in the buffer enable - thus guaranteeing valid
> data before we start. After that we wouldn't need to check this
> here.
>
Thanks for the explanation. If we are to go with this one, where to put
it, preenable or postenable? I'm assuming the latter but would like to
confirm.
> What do others think?
>
Any other inputs are greatly appreciated.
Eva
