Re: [PATCH 4/4] iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: use the common inv_sensors timestamp module

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 19:09:51 +0000
Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <Jean-Baptiste.Maneyrol@tdk.com> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> the 2 algorithms are very similar, but the new one in module is better (less jitter, better average value using a moving window, ...).
> 
> So switching to the new one will lead to better timestamping, while keeping a very similar approach.
That's fine. Add this info to the patch description for next version.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> Thanks,
> JB
> 
> 
> From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 13:08
> To: INV Git Commit <INV.git-commit@tdk.com>
> Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>; lars@metafoo.de <lars@metafoo.de>; Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <Jean-Baptiste.Maneyrol@tdk.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: use the common inv_sensors timestamp module 
>  
> [CAUTION] This is an EXTERNAL email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> ======================================================================
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 14:25:13 +0000
> inv.git-commit@tdk.com wrote:
> 
> > From: Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jean-baptiste.maneyrol@tdk.com>
> > 
> > Replace timestamping by the new common inv_sensors timestamp
> > module.  
> Are there functional changes as a result of this, or were the two
> algorithms identical?
> 
> I don't mind changes, but should call out if there are any when
> unifying code like this,
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jean-baptiste.maneyrol@tdk.com