On 09 Nov 09, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > Amit Kucheria wrote: > > On 09 Nov 09, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >> Hi Amit, > >> > >> Normally I'd welcome this in IIO, except that all ambient light sensors are in the > >> process of moving to the new ALS subsystem. There are still some issues to resolve > >> in that subsystem (mainly to do with naming conventions) but hopefully we will > >> get them sorted out shortly. > > > > Groan! :) > You have my sympathies on this! Typical that the first other developer to put > forward a patch for IIO picks the one type of device we are moving out. Hehe :) Will accelerometers and leds move to IIO? > If you do have any comments on IIO as a result of using it please send them > on. I guess the only major comment would be that the Documentation/device.txt probably needs to be more focussed on driver writers. For example, indio_dev->attrs general attributes such as polled access to device channels. would become indio_dev->attrs sysfs attribute control files. This contains a pointer to a struct attribute_group containing a list of all attributes that export a sysfs control. followed by a sample driver stub. That is probably the only part where I got stuck for a bit. The rest was straightforward after looking at the source for the tsl2561. > > Who will be the subsystem maintainer and is there already a public git > > tree? > No git tree as far as I know. Maintainer is Zhang Rui (Cc'd) > Zhang, what are your plans wrt to that? I guess I can put one up with the current > patches if it is helpful? We really need to sort out the naming issue as the one > thing that people have come out against. No plans. Just wanted to know if there was a tree where I could pull in regularly to see changes without having to wade through LKML :) > After that I'm guessing ping Andrew Morton to see if he is willing to handle the push > to Linus? Or does Zhang want to try doing one directly? > > >> I'll take a close look at this sometime over the next few days though. On a quick > >> glance at the data sheet, it looks very similar to the tsl2561. Perhaps we can merge > >> the drivers? Yours is certainly more complete than the tsl2561 version in IIO so it > >> would make sense to lift the functional elements in to the code I have for an ALS > >> driver. I hadn't posted that previously as I hadn't quite worked out how to handle > >> the various gain related settings. What you have done seems to make sense (from a very > >> quick look.) > > > > I've got no problem merging the tsl2563 with 2561. I don't have any 2561 > > hardware to check a merged driver though. > > On a reasonably thorough review of data sheets I think the only difference is the > input voltage range and a few timing parameters. These two chips even use the same > addresses. I'll actually test your driver against the tsl2561 sometime later in the > week to be sure. So the merge looks like adding a few more lines to the i2c_device_id > table. As a quick comment you would ideally have the tsl2563 and tsl2562 in there > already. > > > > > > Do you think the ALS framework will be finalised before the 2.6.33 merge > > window (in a few weeks)? If not, I wonder if Greg would take this driver to > > staging to begin with and I'll modify it to use the ALS subsystem when it > > settles down. > I'm certainly happy with that as an option if Greg is willing. In fact, > adding this with tsl2560-> tsl2563 support and removing the current tsl2561 driver would > be great (post any reviews over the next couple of days). > I could certainly add support for tsl2560-2562 to my driver if you want, along with incorporating comments from the review. Regards, Amit -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amit Kucheria, Kernel Developer, Verdurent ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
