[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Best option for handling dependencies between sysfs params.
    Hi Jean
    > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:24:09 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
    >> The tsl2561 ambient light sensor has separate controls for integration
    >> time and for gain.
    >> Now, discussions about the tsl2550 driver suggested that range be handled
    >> by an illuminance0_max_range parameter. In that particular device things
    >> are simple as there is one internal variable effecting the range.
    >> So to try and match interfaces, I'm intending to have the
    >> same illuminance0_max_range and also an integration time parameter.
    >> (avoiding for now the more complex manual option!)
    >> My current approach is to use writes to illuminance0_max_range to store
    >> a 'requested' max gain value. Thus a later change to the integration time
    >> parameter may well result in the internal gain parameter also changing
    >> in order to meet this desired value.
    >> Reading this parameter will always return the max range value for
    >> the current configuration.
    >> Do people think this is a valid approach? More or less corresponds to
    >> 'integration time priority' in the language of photography. In effect
    >> it makes the internal gain an automatic parameter rather than integration
    >> time. Could just as easily do the other way round though.
    >> All comments welcome.
    > This sounds like a valid approach indeed. I agree that it makes more
    > sense to let users chose the integration time, as it determines how
    > averaged the values are, than the gain which doesn't serve much purpose
    > by itself. Even though the TSL2550 changes the integration time, not
    > the gain, to select the range. But I can imagine other light sensor
    > chips could change the gain and not the integration range, so it's not
    > really relevant.
    > That being said, I am curious if you consider the integration time a
    > valuable tweaking knob for the user, as it would be to a photographer,
    > or not. If not, I imagine that we could set both the gain and the
    > integration time based on illuminance0_max_range. Just arbitrarily
    > decide which is set first and how, and which is computed then to match
    > the request. That would be a more simple user-interface.
    > I'm not saying that making the user-interface simple is the ultimate
    > goal here. I am raising the point because I simply don't know. If there
    > is no immediate need for integration time tweaking, then I see a value
    > to make all chips use the same simple interface.
    I'll fully admit I'm only writing this driver because it's on a sensor
    board for one of the platforms I maintain and I'd like to fully support that
    board. I guess if anyone cares we can add it later.
    > Looking at the TSL2561 datasheet, I see that the integration time has
    > only 3 possible values (13.7 ms, 101 ms and 402 ms), and the gain only
    > 2 (x1 and x16), for a total of 6 possible ranges. This is more than the
    > 2 possibilities offered by the TSL2550, but still doesn't strike me as
    > fine-tuning capable. Arbitrarily considering integration time of 402 ms
    > and gain of x1 as the "standard" range, here go the possibilities:
    > 13.7 ms, x1: 0 - 0.034
    > 101 ms, x1: 0 - 0.252
    > 13.7 ms, x16: 0 - 0.544
    > 402 ms, x1: 0 - 1.000
    > 101 ms, x16: 0 - 4.032
    > 402 ms, x16: 0 - 16.000
    > There's not much overlapping, which gives me the impression that
    > setting both the integration time and the gain based on the requested
    > range is a valid option, at least for the TSL2561. What do you think?
    Yup that sounds sensible to me. I hadn't actually worked out the ranges
    available. That's what one gets for blindly coding without taking a step
    back and thinking about it!
    > (I'm curious if I missed something though, as the datasheet claims
    > 1,000,000-to-1 dynamic range, when the above suggests 470-to-1.)

    To be cynical they are probably multiplying that by the range the adc's
    will output.



     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-18 14:35    [W:0.026 / U:49.792 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site