On 25/04/16 12:17, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote: > On 04/24/2016 02:14 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> On 20/04/16 14:15, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote: >>> This can be used to distinguish mpu6500. This is a warning rather than >>> an error because the differences are mostly irrelevant and it's nice to >>> avoid breaking users with slightly incorrect ACPI/DT. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Crestez Dan Leonard <leonard.crestez@xxxxxxxxx> >> Would we be better off fixing their configuration though by using the right part >> if we can identify it? So if wrong, maybe we should search the info table to >> figure out what it is? I'm not certain on this though as then we are trying to >> deal with unknown future cases - maybe what you have here is the best balance. > > I'm not sure about that. One issue is that 6000/6050/9150 have the same > WHOAMI value and can't be distinguished this way. They also seem to > identical interfaces. Models MPU6500 and MPU9250 report different WHOAMI > values. > > Changing chip_type based on the WHOAMI would require some additional > refactoring. Placing that in a separate patch might be worthwhile anyway. > Agreed. >>> +#define INV_MPU6050_REG_WHOAMI 117 >>> + >>> +#define INV_MPU6000_WHOAMI_VALUE 0x68 >>> +#define INV_MPU6050_WHOAMI_VALUE 0x68 >>> +#define INV_MPU6500_WHOAMI_VALUE 0x70 -- 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
