On 4 November 2017 08:10:08 GMT-07:00, "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 04.11.2017 03:50, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >Hi, > >> Because there is no meta data in the channel so if you were to get a >case >> where they got out of sync, there would be no means of identifying >that. >> The data flow is very lightweight - this comes at the penalty of >having to have >> fixed/restricted options on interleaving of data. >> >> Samples need to also be say A1,B1,A2,B2 etc if on a single buffer. > >Ah, now I get it: what's sent to iio_push_to_buffers() is a record >(or sequence of records) of samples from all (synchronous) channels >at some time t ? > >Seems I mixed up the concepts w/ audio devices, where a channel usually >means different input/output streams (which may be mono or stereo). > >How should I implement the sampling rate setting w/ separate devices ? >Maybe some master-slave concept where settings on the master >automatically affect the slaves ? Yes it will be a bit ugly. Probably do it as a set of peers where writing any will change them all. J > > >--mtx -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- 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
