On 08/07/14 16:27, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On July 8, 2014 2:23:55 PM GMT+01:00, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 05:13:56PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On 07/07/14 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
With regulators the delays are handled transparently in the
framework -
by the time the functions return the operation should have
commpleted.
If there is a need to have a non-blocking interface we'll have to
add
this. The delays can be queried with _time() functions.
We are looking at a somewhat tangential question here...
I don't think so...
Hence rather than picking a given power state (deep sleep or similar)
we want the control to be on capture latency. Hence userspace
can specify the 'worst case' latency it will accept and the
device will hence enter the lowest power state, between samples,
that it can without failing to meet the requirement.
What I was wondering is whether there is anything similar
elsewhere that you know of? For example, could we query a
regulator driver to ask it how long it will take to start up
a given output?
...hence my comment that "The delays can be queried with _time()
functions - you don't need to implement the delays but you can find out
what they will be.
Ah sounds like I miss interpreted your response!
Will look into the _time stuff.
Right, this will certainly act as a starting point, though will
be a little bit interesting to make it all work together.
Anyhow, no idea when or if anyone will have time to look at the
levels beyond the sensor drivers themselves.
Thanks Mark,
Jonathan
--
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
