On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 04:42:39PM +0000, Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote: > On 2024-06-18 17:38, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:21:17PM +0000, Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote: > >> On 2024-06-15 13:49, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 09:46:59 +0000 > >> > Kaustabh Chakraborty <kauschluss@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 2024-06-11 18:17, Conor Dooley wrote: > >> >> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 09:35:53PM +0530, Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote: > >> >> >> Add compatible for LIS2DS12 accelerometer by STMicroelectronics. > >> >> > > >> >> > I can see that! Your commit message should mention why this device > >> >> > is not compatible with existing variants. > >> >> > >> >> Sure, is adding the WhoAmI value enough? Or do I also have to > >> >> explain the different registers and sensor settings. > >> >> > >> > Who ami is not enough, but a statement along the lines of > >> > "The register interface is not compatible with existing parts, for > >> > example addresses and contents of numerous registers are different" > >> > > >> > With whatever the actual differences are. > >> > >> "LIS2DS12 is an accelerometer by STMicroelectronics. It is identifiable by > >> its WhoAmI value 0x43. > >> > >> Its register interface is not compatible with existing parts. For example: > >> > >> - The full-scale values are present in register 0x20, in bits 2 and 3 > >> (mask 0x0c). > >> > >> - The full-scale values 2G, 4G, 8G, and 16G correspond to the register > >> values 0x00, 0x02, 0x03, 0x01 respectively. > >> > >> Add the compatible string without any fallback." > >> > >> Is this good enough? > > > > I don't know the other devices, so please highlight how the examples you > > give here are different to the existing ones please. > > Are these acceptable? > > - The full-scale values are present in register 0x20, in bits 2 and 3 > (mask 0x0c). > Most other supported sensors have the register address set to 0x21, > 0x23, 0x24, or 0x25. > There is one sensor setting though (bearing WhoAmI 0x3b) which has > it's address set to 0x20, but the mask is set to 0x20, not 0x0c. > > - The full-scale values 2G, 4G, 8G, and 16G correspond to the register > values 0x00, 0x02, 0x03, 0x01 respectively. > None of the sensor settings have the value 0x01 associated with 16G. Yeah, that sounds good to me. Thanks for the updates.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
