Dear Juergen Beisert,
[...]
So, I've been thinking about mapping channels and delay slots at runtime. Is it
really necessary? I know it's really cool and all, but it adds a lot of
complexity. For starters, I was thinking we should try to do static mapping. And
when that's all perfected, go further and try doing it dynamically. What do you
think about the following DT binding:
lradc@80050000 {
compatible = "fsl,imx28-lradc";
reg = <0x80050000 2000>;
interrupts = <10 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25>;
fsl,delay-freq = <10 100 50 60>;
fsl,delay-repeat = <3 10 5 6>;
fsl,delay-channels = <
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5
1 8 1 9 2 12 3 13>;
status = "disabled";
};
fsl,delay-freq would be an array (for all four delay channels) of their sampling
frequencies.
fsl,delay-repeat would be an array (for all four delay channels) of the
oversampling count.
fsl,delay-channels would be an array (for all four delay channels) of touples of
delay channel, adc channel. In the above example, it's ADC channels 2,3,4,5
mapped to delay channel 0, ADC channels 8,9 mapped to delay channel 1 etc.
Now, it might be dumb, advice is welcome!
> > [...]
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
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
