On 5/10/23 09:33, Crt Mori wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 13:32, Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/8/23 12:10, Crt Mori wrote:
[...]
@@ -666,14 +678,43 @@ static const struct mlx_chip_info mlx90614_chip_info = {
},
};
+static const struct mlx_chip_info mlx90615_chip_info = {
+ .op_eeprom_emissivity = MLX90615_OP_EEPROM | 0x03,
+ .op_eeprom_config1 = MLX90615_OP_EEPROM | 0x02,
+ .op_ram_ta = MLX90615_OP_RAM | 0x06,
+ .op_ram_tobj1 = MLX90615_OP_RAM | 0x07,
+ .op_ram_tobj2 = MLX90615_OP_RAM | 0x08,
+ .op_sleep = MLX90615_OP_SLEEP,
+ .dual_channel = false,
+ .wakeup_delay_ms = MLX90615_TIMING_WAKEUP,
+ .emissivity_max = 16383,
+ .emissivity_res = 1000 000 000 / 16383,
This makes me wonder if we could just drop the emissivity_res and have
it calculate it using emissivity_max, since both chips will do it.
We can do that (i.e. change done locally now).
+ .fir_config_mask = 0, /* MLX90615 FIR is fixed */
+ .iir_config_mask = MLX90615_CONFIG_IIR_MASK,
+ /* IIR value 0 is FORBIDDEN COMBINATION on MLX90615 */
+ .iir_valid_offset = 1,
+ .iir_values = { 723, 77, 42, 31, 28, 20, 18 },
+ .iir_freqs = {
+ { 0, 180000 }, /* 14% ~= 0.18 Hz */
+ { 0, 200000 }, /* 17% ~= 0.20 Hz */
+ { 0, 280000 }, /* 20% ~= 0.28 Hz */
+ { 0, 310000 }, /* 25% ~= 0.31 Hz */
+ { 0, 420000 }, /* 33% ~= 0.42 Hz */
+ { 0, 770000 }, /* 50% ~= 0.77 Hz */
+ { 7, 230000 }, /* 100% ~= 7.23 Hz */
Before I send a V3, can you please double-check these ^ IIR coefficients
? I approximated those, but I suspect my approximation might not be
accurate.
I have reached out to the developer for the 90615 and here is his message:
0b0000 - Forbidden value
0b0001 - 100% - settling time = refresh rate = 205ms (around 5Hz)
0b0010 - 50% - settling time = 2050ms (around 0.5Hz)
0b0011 - 33% - settling time = 36900ms (around 0.3Hz)
0b0100 - 25% - settling time = 5125ms (around 0.2Hz)
0b0101 - 20% - settling time = 6355ms (around 0.15Hz)
0b0110 - 17% - settling time = 7790ms (around 0.13Hz)
0b0111 - 14% - settling time = 9225ms (around 0.1Hz)
It does differ to yours, so what was your source?
Approximation, really ... clearly they were wrong, so thanks for checking !
Fixed in V3.
