On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 19:09:51 +0000 Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <Jean-Baptiste.Maneyrol@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > the 2 algorithms are very similar, but the new one in module is better (less jitter, better average value using a moving window, ...). > > So switching to the new one will lead to better timestamping, while keeping a very similar approach. That's fine. Add this info to the patch description for next version. Thanks, Jonathan > > Thanks, > JB > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 13:08 > To: INV Git Commit <INV.git-commit@xxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; lars@xxxxxxxxxx <lars@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <Jean-Baptiste.Maneyrol@xxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: use the common inv_sensors timestamp module > > [CAUTION] This is an EXTERNAL email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > ====================================================================== > On Wed, 31 May 2023 14:25:13 +0000 > inv.git-commit@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jean-baptiste.maneyrol@xxxxxxx> > > > > Replace timestamping by the new common inv_sensors timestamp > > module. > Are there functional changes as a result of this, or were the two > algorithms identical? > > I don't mind changes, but should call out if there are any when > unifying code like this, > > Jonathan > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jean-baptiste.maneyrol@xxxxxxx
