On 2018-03-27 15:22, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:42:40 +0200 > Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2018-03-24 15:03, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:02:46 +0100 >>> Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> + if (iio_channel_has_info(pchan, IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW)) >>>> + chan->info_mask_separate |= BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW); >>> if the parent doesn't support RAW, is there a lot of point in carrying on? >> >> Nope, better to error out I suppose. But I'm not familiar with channels >> without RAW, what alternatives are there anyway? > > Potentially _PROCESSED though that will need somewhat different handling. > A nasty trick for that might be to map it to RAW and then have the SCALE > reflect the divider circuit scale only. Hmm, I think a lot of things might assume RAW to be a pure integer, and maybe they are even correct to do so? So yes, that seems nasty indeed... > It's perfectly possible to have channels with neither _RAW or _PROCESSED > but I suspect we don't care about them here. > > There might be an application that needs to do buffered data flows in the > long run, but we can figure out how to do that when one exists. > > It won't be a huge amount more than you have here, though we might need > a trigger pass through as well to allow you to set the trigger for > the front end and having it automatically applied to the backend. Yes, this is the same for the iio-mux. I don't need it, I in fact need very little bandwidth for these things. Someone with an itch will have to fill in the buffer/trigger handling... Cheers, Peter -- 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
