Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:51:00 +0000 | From | Jonathan Cameron <> | Subject | Re: IIO comments |
| |
On 03/18/11 16:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 18 March 2011, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> I guess if it's always in${i}-in${i+1}, it's still not too hard. >> I think they have been so far, but doubt this is universal. >> How about having a diff type and just having a pair of indices in the >> channel structure? Actually may need a third for x^2+y^2+z^2 devices. >> (iirc there are parts that do x^2+y^2 despite also having a z channel) >> ... > > If two identifiers are common, that would probably be fine. > > If you have a x^2+y^2+z^2 device, it might be easier to call that > a different type with a fixed name, as long as there is a small > number of combinations. True. A balance to be struck there as and when they occur.
Thanks,
Jonathan
| |