The bottom 3 bits are still functional bits and aren't required to be masked. Arguably these bits are below the hardware accuracy of the ADC, however, they still provide some averaging information.
--Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: bruce robertson [mailto:bruce.e.robertson@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:00 PM
To: Anton Vorontsov
Cc: dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dg77.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx; kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx; myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx; Jason Wortham
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] max17042: Fix value scaling for VCELL and avgVCELL
Anton Vorontsov<cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 09:26:07AM -0800, dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx wrote:From: Bruce Robertson<bruce.e.robertson@xxxxxxxxx>
The bottom three bits of the register are don't care bits. The LSB
value is 625 uV. Adjust the returned values appropriately
Signed-off-by: Bruce Robertson<bruce.e.robertson@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Brandewie<dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: MyungJoo Ham<myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I guess this was fixed long ago by the following patch:
commit cf7a8c03db792894f436db5f3ffc44d947b9b068
Author: MyungJoo Ham<myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed Aug 17 10:18:34 2011 +0900
max17042_battery: Bugfix of incorrect voltage register value interpretation
The calculation had error in getting voltage values from
MAX17042 registers. The least bit denotes 78.125uV (625/8).
The multipliers I see in the patch are 83 making the voltages somewhat
high and the low 3 bits are not masked off. I'm probably misreading the code.
Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham<myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Philip Rakity<prakity@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park<kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov<cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,