Re: [PATCH V1]iio: adc: spmi-vadc: Changes to support different scaling

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Sricharan,

On 26-Oct-16 3:47 PM, Sricharan wrote:
Hi Ramakrishna,

[snip..]

+	u32 i = 0;
+
+	if (!pts)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	/* Check if table is descending or ascending */
+	if (tablesize > 1) {
+		if (pts[0].x < pts[1].x)
+			descending = 0;
+	}
+
+	while (i < tablesize) {
+		if ((descending == 1) && (pts[i].x < input)) {

         Just if (descending) instead of (descending == 1) and so on for the below as well

	Will change in next patch.


+			/* table entry is less than measured*/
+			 /* value and table is descending, stop */
+			break;
+		} else if ((descending == 0) &&
+				(pts[i].x > input)) {
+			/* table entry is greater than measured*/
+			/*value and table is ascending, stop */
+			break;
+		}
+		i++;
+	}
+
+	if (i == 0) {
+		*output = pts[0].y;
+	} else if (i == tablesize) {
+		*output = pts[tablesize - 1].y;
+	} else {
+		/* result is between search_index and search_index-1 */
+		/* interpolate linearly */
+		*output = (((s32)((pts[i].y - pts[i - 1].y) *
+			(input - pts[i - 1].x)) /
+			(pts[i].x - pts[i - 1].x)) +
+			pts[i - 1].y);
+	}

               hmm, so for descending, input - pts[i -1].x is negative and
               we are adding that to pts[i-1].y, is that correct ?

		The formula used is to interpolate between two points 	using linear
interpolation.

 Right, agree. my question can be ignored.

[snip..]

#define VADC_CHAN_TEMP(_dname, _pre)					\
-	VADC_CHAN(_dname, IIO_TEMP, BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED), _pre)	\
+	VADC_CHAN(_dname, IIO_TEMP,	\
+		BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED), \
+		_pre)	\

#define VADC_CHAN_VOLT(_dname, _pre)					\
-	VADC_CHAN(_dname, IIO_VOLTAGE,					\
-		  BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE),	\
+	VADC_CHAN(_dname, IIO_VOLTAGE,				\
+		  BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) | BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED),\
		  _pre)							\

  For this and the below changes to VADC_CHAN_VOLT to TEMP, why is that done ?
   Now both macros are setting the same flags.

	For Voltage channels IIO_VOLTAGE is needed where as for Temperature
channels IIO_TEMP is needed.


/*
@@ -637,12 +811,11 @@ struct vadc_channels {
	VADC_CHAN_TEMP(DIE_TEMP, 0)
	VADC_CHAN_VOLT(REF_625MV, 0)
	VADC_CHAN_VOLT(REF_1250MV, 0)
-	VADC_CHAN_VOLT(CHG_TEMP, 0)
+	VADC_CHAN_TEMP(CHG_TEMP, 0)
	VADC_CHAN_VOLT(SPARE1, 0)
	VADC_CHAN_VOLT(SPARE2, 0)
	VADC_CHAN_VOLT(GND_REF, 0)
	VADC_CHAN_VOLT(VDD_VADC, 0)
-

And also looks like the deletion of these and below
new lines are unnecessary ?

Agree, Will retain these new lines in next patch V2.

Regards,
 Sricharan


Thanks,
Ramakrishna
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux