Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:02:51 +0100 | From | Slawomir Stepien <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iio: add driver for Microchip MCP414X/416X/424X/426X |
| |
On Mar 16, 2016 19:24, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 03/16/2016 05:25 PM, Slawomir Stepien wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2016 13:30, Peter Meerwald-Stadler wrote: > [...] > >> plenty of the private API, some of which seems to be debug only? > >> what is really needed to interact with a poti? > > > > I wanted to export both the non volatile and volatile memory addresses for wiper > > position access. That is bare minimum for the poti to operate. > > > > But I also wanted to export additional features of this chip. That is way there > > is increase and decrease API, and STATUS and TCON register access. > > > > The important part about a framework and the associated device drivers > is to expose the features of a device using a standardized interface so > you can write generic applications/libraries and share infrastructure. > If an application requires device specific knowledge to access the > features of a device you may as well write a userspace driver using i2cdev. > > So when you are introducing new ABI it should at least follow the > standard naming scheme. And also try to think whether this is a feature > that is present in other similar devices and come up with a device > independent way to expose this functionality. > > Let's start with the simple stuff, I don't really see the advantage of > having separate inc/dec controls. This can be handled through the > standard raw attribute. If the newly written value is one off from the > previous one use inc/dec otherwise write it directly. And even then it > might make sense to just ignore that and always write the raw value.
I've got your point. The version 2 will use only the IIO facilities. Then I will try to build more based on that.
> > The memory_map API is a way to access all the not used by chip memory addresses. > > This API I think could be deleted. But I still think that some people might find > > it useful. > > This sounds more like it should maybe be exposed as a standard EEPROM > device.
Not quite familiar with this, but will look into that.
Once more thank you for comments.
-- Slawomir Stepien
| |