Re: [PATCH v2] iio: light: Add support for ROHM RPR0521 sensor

Daniel Baluta
2015-06-03T08:56:20Z

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@intel.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> >> +static const struct iio_chan_spec rpr0521_channels[] = {
>>> >> + {
>>> >> + .type = IIO_INTENSITY,
>>> >> + .modified = 1,
>>> >> + .address = RPR0521_CHAN_ALS_DATA0,
>>> >> + .channel2 = IIO_MOD_LIGHT_BOTH,
>>> >> + .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) |
>>> >> + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_CALIBSCALE),
>>> >
>>> > why CALIBSCALE and not SCALE?
>>>
>>> Because this is used to set/get gain, which is used by the hardware
>>> to do proper scaling.
>>>
>>> AFAIK this should be calibscale.
>>
>> in sysfs-bus-iiof on CALIBSCALE: Hardware applied calibration scale factor
>> (assumed to fix production inaccuracies).
>>
>> this doesn't seem applicable here, it is a gain factor controlling
>> measurement resolution
>
> Ok, I see now and it makes sense :).
>
> # echo 1 > in_intensity_ir_calibscale
> # cat in_intensity_ir_raw
> 79
> # echo 64 > in_intensity_ir_calibscale
> # cat in_intensity_ir_raw
> 5084
>
> The user should get the same value regardless of the gain :), and in the
> above example for x64 gain it should have a 1/64 scale.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Or we can consider that the chan->type is always valid?
>>
>> I'd think so; you also assume that chan->address is valid
>>
>> I suggest to use chan->address to point to a table containing the
>> address and the mask
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Which sensors? It means they do not agree with the ABI:
>>>
>>> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio#L1131
>>
>> that 'clarification' was added recently,
>> 614e8842ddf5502f0e781f91695bfbc1e1e1d9b6 (with 3.18)
>> "Proximity measurement .. by observing reflectivity"
>>
>> high proximity <-> high reflectivity -- this is the reality of what most
>> sensors output (including yours)
>>
>> proximity and distance are opposite concepts;
>> high proximity <-> low distance, and vice versa
>>
>> the distance part doesn't make sense in the ABI description
>
> At least sx9500 uses this convention and userspace applications rely on this.

OK, so wee need to agree on this part and to add a proper descriptor to the ABI.

Jonathan, what do you say?

Daniel.