On 19. 05. 20 16:14, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 5/18/20 10:21 PM, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 26. 02. 20 3:16, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On 2/24/20 3:26 PM, Franz Forstmayr wrote: >>>> Add initial support for INA260 power monitor with integrated shunt. >>>> Registers are different from other INA2xx devices, that's why a small >>>> translation table is used. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Franz Forstmayr <forstmayr.franz@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I think the chip is sufficiently different to other chips that a separate >>> driver would make much more sense than adding support to the existing >>> driver. >>> There is no calibration, registers are different, the retry logic is >>> not needed. A new driver could use the with_info API and would be much >>> simpler while at the same time not messing up the existing driver. >> >> Isn't it also better to switch to IIO framework? >> As we discussed in past there are two ina226 drivers. One in hwmon and >> second based on IIO framework (more advance one?) and would be good to >> deprecate hwmon one. > > "More advanced" is relative. The ina2xx driver in iio doesn't support > alert limits (which is queued in the hwmon driver for 5.8), and the > iio->hwmon bridge doesn't support it either. On top of that, there are > existing users of the hwmon driver, which would have to be converted > first. As for ina260, it would be up to the implementer to determine > if alert limit support is needed or not, and which API would be > appropriate for the intended use case. Good to know. If ina260 is done as separate driver I am fine with it. Thanks, Michal
