Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel_mid: ADC management

From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel_mid: ADC management
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:19:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e65fbfb8-1169-46dc-aad9-1dc9dbb91e8f@email.android.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120410223722.GY7499@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:39:40PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
>> 1)  Review of code.  This is crucial. If people have a little time
>> ripping holes in the core IIO code is what we need.  Arnd did a good
>job
>> of this a while back. Others have done bits of it since.
>
>> 2) Getting the push code tidied up and pushed out.  I'll post it as
>an
>> updated rfc to linux-iio shortly.  All I had left that definitely
>> wanted doing here was cleaning up the example iio to input bridge
>> driver.  That can happen later.
>
>For these two can we refactor in place?  That's pretty much what seems
>to have been happening anyway...
>
I guess it comes down to whether Linus will pull.  2 should be there within a week or so anyway depending mostly on analog testing I haven't broken any of their drivers.
>> * Event passing to consumers else where in the kernel. Right now an
>> input driver can readings from a sensor, but there is no way of
>> requesting threshold interrupts.
>
>> * Interaction between consumer drivers (e.g. hwmon or input) where
>some
>> are requesting data by polling when they want it and others want a
>
>These sound like something that can be added incrementally?
>
>> > If the code was moved out of staging today what would go wrong?
>
>> Churn in interfaces is probably about it.  Maybe a good use of any
>time
>
>I guess the big question is then if we can live with that.

Agreed.  
>> would be for people to take their non IIO drivers that they think
>might
>> fit (or data sheets!) and see whether there are things that they
>would
>> like to be different.
>
>In tree there's a few auxadc and comparator drivers in drivers/mfd,
>plus
>things like arch/arm/plat-samsung/adc.c in the arch direcories.  These
>are all broadly similar to the at91 code that's been sent to IIO
>already.  There's also the code Alan posted at the top of this thread.
Quite a lot of things in miscellaneous as well to possibly pull in over time.

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.