Am 14.11.2017 05:36 schrieb harinath Nampally:
> This patch adds following related changes:
> - defines pulse event related registers
> - enables and handles single pulse interrupt for fxls8471
> - handles IIO_EV_DIR_EITHER in read/write callbacks (because
> event direction for pulse is either rising or falling)
> - configures read/write event value for pulse latency register
> using IIO_EV_INFO_HYSTERESIS
> - adds multiple events like pulse and tranient event spec
> as elements of event_spec array named 'mma8452_accel_events'
>
> Except mma8653 chip all other chips like mma845x and
> fxls8471 have single tap detection feature.
> Tested thoroughly using iio_event_monitor application on
> imx6ul-evk board which has fxls8471.
>
> Signed-off-by: Harinath Nampally <harinath922@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
What tree is this written against? It doesn't apply to the current
-next
anyways.
Thanks for the review.
It is actually against 'testing' branch, I think two of my earlier
patches are not yet applied to
any branch, that might be reason this patch is not good against
current -next or 'togreg'.
I think the defintions would deserve to be in a separate patch, but
that's debatable.
Yes, I would argue that definitions are not a logical change.
I would argue definitions don't break the build and maybe slightly
better
support features like bisect or revert :)
> .type = IIO_EV_TYPE_MAG,
> .dir = IIO_EV_DIR_RISING,
> .mask_separate = BIT(IIO_EV_INFO_ENABLE),
> @@ -1139,6 +1274,15 @@ static const struct iio_event_spec mma8452_transient_event[] = {
> BIT(IIO_EV_INFO_PERIOD) |
> BIT(IIO_EV_INFO_HIGH_PASS_FILTER_3DB)
> },
> + {
> + //pulse event
> + .type = IIO_EV_TYPE_MAG,
> + .dir = IIO_EV_DIR_EITHER,
> + .mask_separate = BIT(IIO_EV_INFO_ENABLE),
> + .mask_shared_by_type = BIT(IIO_EV_INFO_VALUE) |
> + BIT(IIO_EV_INFO_PERIOD) |
> + BIT(IIO_EV_INFO_HYSTERESIS)
> + },
> };
>
> static const struct iio_event_spec mma8452_motion_event[] = {
> @@ -1202,8 +1346,8 @@ static struct attribute_group mma8452_event_attribute_group = {
> .shift = 16 - (bits), \
> .endianness = IIO_BE, \
> }, \
> - .event_spec = mma8452_transient_event, \
> - .num_event_specs = ARRAY_SIZE(mma8452_transient_event), \
> + .event_spec = mma8452_accel_events, \
> + .num_event_specs = ARRAY_SIZE(mma8452_accel_events), \
that would go in the mentioned separate renaming-patch
OK so I will make a patch set; patch 1/2 to just rename
'mma8452_transient_event[]'
to 'mma8452_accel_events[]'(without adding pulse event).
and everything else would go in 2/2. Does that makes sense?
It does to me.
--
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
