On 04/06/11 23:47, Sonny Rao wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 04/06/11 03:45, Sonny Rao wrote: >>> Industrial I/O devices can sometimes take a long time to resume, >>> allowing them to be asynchronus saves 50ms on one light sensor >>> >> Hi Sonny, >> >> cc'd linux-iio >> >> I'm not particularly familiar with this. Are there any disadvantages? >> I just wonder if it would be better to push this into individual drivers >> rather than the core? > > Yeah we could do it that way too, I sent out a similar patch for i2c > and people were asking if it was entirely safe. It sounds like it may > depend on dependencies between devices. > > Do you know if any of the devices in iio have inter-device dependencies? > I was under the impression they were mostly stand-alone sensors that > ordinarily wouldn't, but I haven't tried to audit all of them or anything. Mostly I think is the key word here. Right now I don't think we have anything that would have a problem, but putting something like that in the core is liable to bite sometime in the future. For now at least I think I'd prefer to see it in an individual driver. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
