On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 08:18:27 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 09/01/16 17:27, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Saturday, January 09, 2016 at 05:31:24 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >> 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? > > > > I'm not an IIO guru, but this does sound sensible. Do you know if any > > userland code which actually uses the ACPI ALS already ? > > It's more than likely as Gnome at least supports using them to control > screen brightness. Hopefully that code is able to cope with the correct > ABI though as well as the old one. Anyhow, we seem to have a reasonable > consensus. Gabriele, are you happy to do a version of the patch with the > _RAW version left along side your _PROCESSED version and a comment saying > that it is for compatibility only? This makes sense in my mind, thanks :) 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
