On Thu, 2020-03-05 at 13:43 +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 3/5/20 1:27 PM, Sa, Nuno wrote: > > > In my opinion there is should not be a difference in the > > > userspace > > > interface for chips that do support 32-bit burst and those that > > > don't. > > > For devices that don't support 32-bit burst it should be emulated > > > by > > > reading the LSB bits registers manually. > > Hmm. In terms of interface I think there is no difference. We > > always > > report 32bits channels (for accel and gyro). However, what we do > > right > > know is just to set the LSB to 0 if burst32 is not supported. So, > > we > > can be just ignoring the LSB bits if they are being used... > > What I meant was that somebody might still want to get the full 32- > bit > values in buffered mode, even if the device does not support burst32. They are. Just that the LSB part is always set to 0 :). And that, in my opinion, is wrong. As you say, we should do the manual readings if there are any bits on the LSB registers... - Nuno Sá > In > that case you can first do a 16-bit burst read to get the MSBs and > then > do manual reads of all the LSB registers and then put both into the > buffer. > - Lars >
