On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:07:16AM -0400, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 10/05/11 10:40, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 04:39:01AM -0400, Hennerich, Michael wrote: > >> Jonathan Cameron wrote on 2011-09-30: > >>> Driver ported over to hwmon where it fits much better. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Acked-by: Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>> --- > >>> Technically there is a slight loss of functionality in the hwmon > >>> driver (no power down mode). > >>> > >>> Otherwise, lets clear this one out. > >>> > >>> 3 more to go on my removal list ;) > >>> adt7310, adt7410 and adt75. > >>> > > > > Just noticed this part. ADT75 is the Analog version of LM75. > > Any reason not to use the standard LM75 driver instead ? > Fine by me! I didn't realise that was the case. Thanks for pointing it > out. > > Michael, are you happy with simply adding the id to the lm75 driver and > dropping the iio one? I can always do the actual patches if that helps. LM75 / ADT75 does not have an ID register, unfortunately. The code uses some kind of heuristics to detect it. Someone will have to test if the LM75 driver works; if not, we'll have to come up with a mechanism to detect ADT75. I requested samples, but it looks like I asked for too many lately and could only get ADT75A, not ADT75B. I hope there are no register differences between the variants. > > > > On a side note, the iio adt75 driver won't work properly if oneshot is configured. > > I'll leave it to the readers to figure out why ;). > I dread to think, these few are a mess. > > > > > Regarding the power down mode, shouldn't this be supported using the standard > > suspend/resume API with CONFIG_PM ? Or does iio have a parallel mechanism ? > It's more a case of run time power management. Suspend support should indeed > be in there, but typically people want to shut these chips down if no one cares > about them, not just on suspend. Now we can apply heuristics (no one has > buffered access open, and any sysfs read is slow enough to bring the chip up > from powerdown anyway). Normally that sort of stuff is a little fiddly so we Hmmm ... not true for ADT75, really. Per datasheet, the chip takes 1.7ms to come out of shutdown and then requires another 60ms for a conversion (hint, hint, for the oneshot problem suggested above). sysfs may be slow, but it is not _that_ slow. Thanks, Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
