On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 17:12:50 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 05:12:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 04:53:56PM +0300, Ramona Alexandra Nechita wrote: > > ... > > > > +Description: > > > + Reading returns a list with the possible filter modes. Options > > > + for the attribute: > > > + * "sinc3" - The digital sinc3 filter. Moderate 1st conversion time. > > > + Good noise performance. > > > + * "sinc4" - Sinc 4. Excellent noise performance. Long > > > + 1st conversion time. > > > + * "sinc5" - The digital sinc5 filter. Excellent noise performance > > > + * "sinc4+sinc1" - Sinc4 + averaging by 8. Low 1st conversion > > > + time. > > > + * "sinc3+rej60" - Sinc3 + 60Hz rejection. > > > + * "sinc3+sinc1" - Sinc3 + averaging by 8. Low 1st conversion > > > + time. > > > + * "sinc3+pf1" - Sinc3 + device specific Post Filter 1. > > > + * "sinc3+pf2" - Sinc3 + device specific Post Filter 2. > > > + * "sinc3+pf3" - Sinc3 + device specific Post Filter 3. > > > + * "sinc3+pf4" - Sinc3 + device specific Post Filter 4. > > > > I still think that a compromise to leave the existing values as an example in > > > the existing bindings is a good to have. It gets hard to do really quickly because we end up with effectively a full set of docs for each one. I'd like to capture that information but I'm not sure ABI docs are the right place because we don't want each entry to followed by pages of specific examples. I'd have loved the option for ABI docs to have extra info in a per device file that doesn't end up in the main docs build but we don't have that yet. Jonathan > > s/existing/generic/ > >
