On 08/24/2016 11:29 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
[snip...]
+
+The axes may also be flipped: for a screen you probably want (x) coordinates to
+go from negative on the left to positive on the right and (z) depth to be
+negative under the screen and positive in front of it, toward the face of the
+user.
I'm not sure we don't want to define that it can't be flipped and enforce the
correct coordinate system on the underlying drivers (fingers crossed they are
currently all left or all right handed? - oops should have been keeping an eye on
this).
As to coordinate system definition, multiple conventions seem to exist across
industries. For UAV, we use the one described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dynamics_(fixed-wing_aircraft)
So I feel like we should keep away from any temptation to define the coordinates
system too strictly.
I also think of systems composed of multiple hardware parts with sensors
scattered all over them. What would be the right "device/main hardware" reference
frame definition in these cases ?
As this is product specific, I feel like "device/main hardware" reference frame
definition should be left to the "board/main hardware/device..." implementor's
choice.
Flexible is good, but I think we should define a base rule for the chips frame
of reference and fix up any that disagree (which is nasty ABI breakage :(
We might as well expose another property to userspace to indicate
coordinates system convention currently in use.
This seems overly complex to me but might ease portability across platforms
and products. I have no clear opinion on this.
Anyway, DT / BSP maintainer would always have the ability to customize
mounting matrix values on a per-product basis to fit their application
expectations.
E.g., from Parrot's UAVs perspective, flight control stack expects
coordinates
system to be defined according to aeronautic convention (hardcoded).
Even if DT required a strict definition of coordinates system, this
would implies
no changes to rotation matrix values currently set into our DTs...
Trivial choice of either right handed or left handed frame might be all we
define in general. Useful to define consistent frames for device types that
are common perhaps as well. (such as the screen ones Linus has here).
It seems most common definition is what is described here:
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-orientation-event-20160818/
and here:
https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/sensors/sensors_overview.html#sensors-coords
given that Android devices represent a fair amount of phones and tablets
in use.
Searched for IoT related things but no clear conventions came out...
And I can't think of PC world as a reference for this kind of stuff.
Yours,
Greg.
--
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
