From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.75]:43723 "HELO na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756160Ab2EAS27 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2012 14:28:59 -0400 Received: by wgbfa7 with SMTP id fa7so3556508wgb.4 for ; Tue, 01 May 2012 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Ge Gao References: <4F9FAAB9.7060003@metafoo.de> <4F9FE357.6050004@cam.ac.uk> <4F9FE632.3040308@metafoo.de> <4F9FEA37.5040107@cam.ac.uk> <4F9FEDC6.8070400@metafoo.de> <4F9FF002.2060900@metafoo.de> <4F9FF82E.80906@cam.ac.uk> <4FA02576.2060607@metafoo.de> <6adea11c-371d-4d73-bb36-f9681db7265d@email.android.com> In-Reply-To: <6adea11c-371d-4d73-bb36-f9681db7265d@email.android.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 11:28:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4fab27b061c75547b5b02a7f409753f5@mail.gmail.com> Subject: RE: different data rate in IIO ? To: Jonathan Cameron , Lars-Peter Clausen Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Thanks for the advice. So it seems everyone agrees that multiple IIO device is the way to go. What about the using a flag to indicate which data will come like the one below: Under IIO architecture, can we have another kind of ring buffer in addition to sw_ring and kfifo, such as header to indicate data type(gyro_x, gyro_y, gyro_z, accel_x, accel_y, accel_z, compass_x, compass_y, compass_z, quaternion_x, quaternion_y, quaternion_z, quaternion_c) followed by actual data. Also can we have some definition for quaternion? It is an important datum for rotation calculation. It contains 4 elements, x, y, z and a constant. Ge -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Cameron [mailto:jic23@cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:05 AM To: Lars-Peter Clausen Cc: Ge Gao; linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: different data rate in IIO ? Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >On 05/01/2012 04:50 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> On 5/1/2012 3:15 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >>> On 05/01/2012 04:05 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >>> [...] >>> Ah, seems as if the refcounting infrastructure is already ready for >>> use after we have called device_initialize, so the above plan should >>> work >quite >>> well. >>> Call device_del in iio_device_unregister and device_put in >>> iio_device_free and free the struct in the release callback. >> That makes sense given it just splits the two parts of >device_unregister >> apart. >> Don't suppose you want to do the patch? > >I could write the patch, but I don't have a setup at hand right now >where I could test it, so this would have to wait until next week. I >wouldn't mind if you took care of it though :) I'll aim to do it Saturday.... nothing to test on till then. > >- Lars -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.