From: Hector Palacios <hector.palacios@digi.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
"linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
"fabio.estevam@freescale.com" <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
Subject: Re: Accessing specific hardware features of mxs-lradc
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 16:55:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51D2E9EF.50303@digi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51D2D591.4040101@free-electrons.com>
Hello,
On 07/02/2013 03:28 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 02/07/2013 14:58, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>> On 07/02/2013 12:49 PM, Hector Palacios wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> The mxs-lradc has some hardware specific features like the DIVIDE_BY_TWO (an
>>> analog divide by two circuit that can be activated per channel).
>>> This is not currently implemented in the driver and I was wondering what would
>>> be the way to expose and control such setting. A specific sysfs entry? Somehow
>>> through the device tree?
>>>
>>> Is there any example of how to control a hw-specific feature in other similar
>>> iio drivers?
>>>
>>
>> This sounds as if the channel scale is programmable. There are quite a few
>> drivers for devices which have similar features, just make the scale property
>> writable and provide a scale_available.
>>
>
> I was looking at that yesterday as I had to had a scale for the
> temperature sensors. You'll have to be careful because the maximum
> measured voltage when DIVIDE_BY_TWO is not set is 1.85V and when it is
> set, it becomes VDDIO - 50mv.
>
> Also, scaling for quite a lot of channels is fixed. You'll also get
> channels with a fixed divider that can take DIVIDE_BY_TWO. That is quite
> a mess ;)
Thank you, I checked and it's easy to add custom sysfs attributes using
IIO_DEVICE_ATTR(). I was thinking whether adding a divide_by_two attribute per channel:
divide_by_two0
divide_by_two1
...
divide_by_two7
or a unique divide_by_two descriptor that admits a mask value for all channels.
I think the first approach (one per channel) is cleaner. Opinions?
Best regards,
--
Hector Palacios
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-02 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-02 10:49 Accessing specific hardware features of mxs-lradc Hector Palacios
2013-07-02 12:06 ` Marek Vasut
2013-07-02 12:58 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2013-07-02 13:28 ` Alexandre Belloni
2013-07-02 14:55 ` Hector Palacios [this message]
2013-07-02 15:21 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2013-07-02 15:41 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2013-07-02 15:45 ` Alexandre Belloni
2013-07-02 15:55 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51D2E9EF.50303@digi.com \
--to=hector.palacios@digi.com \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=fabio.estevam@freescale.com \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marex@denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox