Dear Marek Vasut,
> 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>;
btw. I don't like the idea of those tuples here ... any hint how to do it
better?
> 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
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
