On 07/01/16 15:21, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote: > As per the ACPI specification (Revision 5.0) [1], the data coming > from the sensor represent the ambient light illuminance reading > expressed in lux. Use IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED instead of > IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW to signify that the data are pre-processed. > > [1] http://www.acpi.info/DOWNLOADS/ACPIspec50.pdf > > Signed-off-by: Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@xxxxxxxxx> Hm. Whilst it's a fix in a sense, the original didn't really 'break' the ABI so I worry a little that this change may break others. Irritating as it is, perhaps we should keep the _RAW and add _PROCESSED (which will then be exactly the same value). We'll also then need a comment in the code, that leaving the _RAW elements was for ABI compatibility. What do others think? Jonathan > --- > drivers/iio/light/acpi-als.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/acpi-als.c b/drivers/iio/light/acpi-als.c > index 60537ec..a53be07 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/light/acpi-als.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/light/acpi-als.c > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static const struct iio_chan_spec acpi_als_channels[] = { > .realbits = 32, > .storagebits = 32, > }, > - .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW), > + .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED), > }, > }; > > @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static int acpi_als_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, > s32 temp_val; > int ret; > > - if (mask != IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) > + if (mask != IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED) > return -EINVAL; > > /* we support only illumination (_ALI) so far. */ > -- 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
