From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]:48671 "EHLO mail-out.m-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751248AbbLTXhW (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:37:22 -0500 From: Marek Vasut To: Jonathan Cameron Subject: Re: Correctness of acpi-als channel mask Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:33:32 +0100 Cc: Gabriele Mazzotta , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Martin =?utf-8?q?Li=C5=A1ka?= References: <5675813D.9040808@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <5675813D.9040808@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <201512210033.32862.marex@denx.de> Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 05:09:33 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 17/12/15 20:32, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have a question regarding the acpi-als driver. > > > > Currently acpi-als uses IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW to report the data coming > > from the sensor. However, as per the ACPI specification [1] (section > > 9.2.2), these values represent the ambient light illuminance expressed > > in lux. Wouldn't IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED be more appropriate in this > > case as the data are in theory pre-processed by the firmware of the > > platform? > > Looks like it to me as well. Cc'd Marek and Martin. Gotta say, I haven't looked at ACPI for a while now. My impression is that these data are RAW and the system software can adjust them based on the values in _ALR table. The result of that would be _PROCESSED I think. But I might be entirely wrong. > > [1] http://www.acpi.info/DOWNLOADS/ACPIspec50.pdf > > > > Regards, > > Gabriele > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Best regards, Marek Vasut