drivers: stepper: add tmc51xx support

[apni2]

Add tmc51xx (tmc5160) support. Most of the code can be shared with the current tmc50xx (tmc5041) implementation.

[apni2]

This is first attempt at supporting the tmc5160. I have tried to do it as simple as possible while still reusing the tmc50xx code, but there may be a better way of doing this.

For instance the following config changes would simplify the code, but offer less flexibility in configuring the drivers.

CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC50XX_RAMPSTAT_POLL -> CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC5XXX_RAMPSTAT_POLL
CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC50XX_RAMPSTAT_POLL_INTERVAL_IN_MSEC -> CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC5XXX_RAMPSTAT_POLL_INTERVAL_IN_MSEC
CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC50XX_RAMP_GEN -> CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC5XXX_RAMP_GEN

[jilaypandya]

This is first attempt at supporting the tmc5160. I have tried to do it as simple as possible while still reusing the tmc50xx code, but there may be a better way of doing this.

For instance the following config changes would simplify the code, but offer less flexibility in configuring the drivers.

CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC50XX_RAMPSTAT_POLL -> CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC5XXX_RAMPSTAT_POLL CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC50XX_RAMPSTAT_POLL_INTERVAL_IN_MSEC -> CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC5XXX_RAMPSTAT_POLL_INTERVAL_IN_MSEC CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC50XX_RAMP_GEN -> CONFIG_STEPPER_ADI_TMC5XXX_RAMP_GEN

These configs are per driver basis, if you have both the drivers on your board, you should be able to select these features individually for both the drivers.

Suggestion: In the first attempt, we can just have tmc51xx driver, without refactoring common code out and then refactoring common code out could be done as a subsequent PR?

[apni2]

These configs are per driver basis, if you have both the drivers on your board, you should be able to select these features individually for both the drivers.

That was also my thoughts when doing this, but I wonder if there will ever be a setup using both drivers. If one of the drivers uses the feature most of the code will be pulled in so not at lot is saved by having two defines. A common define combined with runtime check would be almost as good.

Suggestion: In the first attempt, we can just have tmc51xx driver, without refactoring common code out and then refactoring common code out could be done as a subsequent PR?

I actually started with that, but almost all the code ended up being shared. Therefore I think it would be better to start with a PR splitting tmc50xx into common and specific parts and adding tmc51xx in a separate PR.

[apni2]

The PR has been refactored making it simpler to follow the code changes in each commit.

[apni2]

For SPI status logging see: apni2@c691701

[jilaypandya]

Hi @apni2 under the reviews list, there is an option called convert to draft, you can click on that if this PR is actually supported to be converted to draft :)

[jilaypandya]

IMO, Would be easier to have the tmc51xx driver merged without refactoring commonalities as of now, we followed the same approach with step/dir drivers.

[jilaypandya]

We are really close, just couple of minor Nits and you need to have a build-all entry

Ping @dipakgmx can you have a look at this as well :)

Following todos are left and then we can get this merged

• build all entry https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/main/tests/drivers/build_all/stepper/spi.dtsi.
• squash all the tmc51xx specific commits would have to be squashed into one. The changes to tmc50xx can be a separate commit.

[apni2]

We are really close, just couple of minor Nits and you need to have a build-all entry

Ping @dipakgmx can you have a look at this as well :)

Following todos are left and then we can get this merged

* [ ]  build all entry https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/main/tests/drivers/build_all/stepper/spi.dtsi.

* [ ]  squash all the tmc51xx specific commits would have to be squashed into one. The changes to tmc50xx can be a separate commit.

Hi @dipakgmx
Will you have a look.

[dipakgmx]

Hi @dipakgmx Will you have a look.

Hi, sorry. Missed out the comment. I will have a look at it.

[apni2]

Hi @dipakgmx Will you have a look.

Hi, sorry. Missed out the comment. I will have a look at it.

No problem, thank you :-)

[dipakgmx]

Some minor comments, else looks good to me.

[jilaypandya]

Just out of curiosity, did you use the tmc50xx sample or tests while developing the driver?

Asking for feedback so that these tools(samples,tests) or documentation can be made improved :)

[apni2]

Just out of curiosity, did you use the tmc50xx sample or tests while developing the driver?

Asking for feedback so that these tools(samples,tests) or documentation can be made improved :)

I used the shell functions for testing the driver.