From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:57:38 +0200 From: Vlad Dogaru To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: Peter Meerwald , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, mranostay@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] iio: driver for Semtech SX9500 Message-ID: <20141119135738.GG6904@vdogaru> References: <1416237169-10707-1-git-send-email-vlad.dogaru@intel.com> <546BC201.10405@kernel.org> <546BC450.7000000@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <546BC450.7000000@kernel.org> List-ID: On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:12:32PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 18/11/14 22:02, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On 17/11/14 15:25, Peter Meerwald wrote: > >> > >>> The device does not estimate distance, it only outputs a single bit which > >>> indicates proximity. We use 0 to mean that an object is close and 1 otherwise, > >>> sort of an uncalibrated distance. From what I understand in the ABI > >>> specification, this is allowed. > >> > >> perhaps the input subsystem would be a better fit for this driver/device? > >> what is it typically used for? We have this part listed under "proximity sensors", so I thought it belongs in iio. We don't have a device that actually uses the SX9500, I'm using an evaluation board and an I2C bridge right now :) > > Whilst it may be the case that this particular one might have a reasonable > > home in input, these are often integrated with ambient light sensors > > and as such we already have a quite a few proximity sensors in IIO... > > > > Interestingly there is one obvious proximity sensor in input and that > > is a dual ambient light/ proximity part though I can't see any way > > of reading the light side of it. Interesting... > Note that, given it describes itself as a button trip I can entirely see > your point with this one! I wrote my reply before opening the datasheet. > oops. > > The device does seem to provide access to measurements related to > the capacitance sensed so might be rather more flexible than just > a button though. I kept away from the measurements because they look like uncalibrated information. Then again, so is "0/1", as I mentioned initially. Would you find it acceptable to expose the raw measures through in_priximity0_raw, and keep the events as they are? That way the raw readings can give some basic indication of distance, while still being able to use the events for near/far notification. Thanks, Vlad