Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] iio: inv_mpu6050: Reformat sample for active scan mask

[Jonathan Cameron]

On 30 May 2016 14:44:41 BST, Crestez Dan Leonard <leonard.crestez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 05/29/2016 06:47 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 18/05/16 16:00, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
>>> Right now it is possible to only enable some of the x/y/z channels,
>for
>>> example you can enable accel_z without x or y but if you actually do
>>> that what you get is actually only the x channel.
>>>
>>> Fix this by reformatting the hardware sample to only include the
>>> requested channels.
>> As it stands here there is no benefit in doing this over using the
>core
>> demux. In fact it's considerably less efficient (fair enough that you
>> are keeping it simple in the first instance).
>> The patch description should make that clear.
>
>Why is it less efficient? All it really does is a bunch of memcpy.

Not doing agglomeration of neighbouring copies (iirc) not git either set of code to
hand!

>
>> I'd definitely like to see simple extension of that option to handle
>> a callback to get the nearest scanmask that is possible (as an
>alternative
>> to the static scan_masks_available list.)
>> 
>> This only gets interesting if we are dealing with the unaligned case
>and for
>> these parts that only kicks in I think if the slave devices have say
>3 bytes in
>> their data type.  
>
>But I want to deal with the unaligned case because it's better than
>introducing odd validations on slave channels. If I added an extension
>to get the nearest scanmask I would have to remove it in PATCH 7.
Hmm I must have misread that. Though you were only supporting 16 bit channels
 for aux sensors.

Then for now can we give this a slightly less generic name. I am not happy
 enough that we want this in the core 'yet'. 
Easy to rename later if it makes sense.

Thanks

Jonathan 

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