From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:33702 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756358AbcJZKR1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:17:27 -0400 From: "Sricharan" To: "'Phani A, Rama Krishna'" , , Cc: , , , "'Hartmut Knaack'" , "'Lars-Peter Clausen'" , "'Peter Meerwald-Stadler'" , "'Julia Lawall'" , "'open list'" References: <1477373226-29587-1-git-send-email-rphani@codeaurora.org> <00c001d22ec1$142a2d80$3c7e8880$@codeaurora.org> <241f4520-92da-5aff-7f4f-9487d6082906@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: <241f4520-92da-5aff-7f4f-9487d6082906@codeaurora.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH V1]iio: adc: spmi-vadc: Changes to support different scaling Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:47:17 +0530 Message-ID: <001c01d22f72$25990c10$70cb2430$@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Hi Ramakrishna, [snip..] >>> + u32 i = 0; >>> + >>> + if (!pts) >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + >>> + /* Check if table is descending or ascending */ >>> + if (tablesize > 1) { >>> + if (pts[0].x < pts[1].x) >>> + descending = 0; >>> + } >>> + >>> + while (i < tablesize) { >>> + if ((descending == 1) && (pts[i].x < input)) { >> >> Just if (descending) instead of (descending == 1) and so on for the below as well > > Will change in next patch. > >> >>> + /* table entry is less than measured*/ >>> + /* value and table is descending, stop */ >>> + break; >>> + } else if ((descending == 0) && >>> + (pts[i].x > input)) { >>> + /* table entry is greater than measured*/ >>> + /*value and table is ascending, stop */ >>> + break; >>> + } >>> + i++; >>> + } >>> + >>> + if (i == 0) { >>> + *output = pts[0].y; >>> + } else if (i == tablesize) { >>> + *output = pts[tablesize - 1].y; >>> + } else { >>> + /* result is between search_index and search_index-1 */ >>> + /* interpolate linearly */ >>> + *output = (((s32)((pts[i].y - pts[i - 1].y) * >>> + (input - pts[i - 1].x)) / >>> + (pts[i].x - pts[i - 1].x)) + >>> + pts[i - 1].y); >>> + } >> >> hmm, so for descending, input - pts[i -1].x is negative and >> we are adding that to pts[i-1].y, is that correct ? > > The formula used is to interpolate between two points using linear >interpolation. Right, agree. my question can be ignored. [snip..] >>> #define VADC_CHAN_TEMP(_dname, _pre) \ >>> - VADC_CHAN(_dname, IIO_TEMP, BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED), _pre) \ >>> + VADC_CHAN(_dname, IIO_TEMP, \ >>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED), \ >>> + _pre) \ >>> >>> #define VADC_CHAN_VOLT(_dname, _pre) \ >>> - VADC_CHAN(_dname, IIO_VOLTAGE, \ >>> - BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE), \ >>> + VADC_CHAN(_dname, IIO_VOLTAGE, \ >>> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED),\ >>> _pre) \ >>> >> For this and the below changes to VADC_CHAN_VOLT to TEMP, why is that done ? >> Now both macros are setting the same flags. > > For Voltage channels IIO_VOLTAGE is needed where as for Temperature >channels IIO_TEMP is needed. > >> >>> /* >>> @@ -637,12 +811,11 @@ struct vadc_channels { >>> VADC_CHAN_TEMP(DIE_TEMP, 0) >>> VADC_CHAN_VOLT(REF_625MV, 0) >>> VADC_CHAN_VOLT(REF_1250MV, 0) >>> - VADC_CHAN_VOLT(CHG_TEMP, 0) >>> + VADC_CHAN_TEMP(CHG_TEMP, 0) >>> VADC_CHAN_VOLT(SPARE1, 0) >>> VADC_CHAN_VOLT(SPARE2, 0) >>> VADC_CHAN_VOLT(GND_REF, 0) >>> VADC_CHAN_VOLT(VDD_VADC, 0) >>> - And also looks like the deletion of these and below new lines are unnecessary ? Regards, Sricharan