[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4796C0EF.6010600@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:22:07 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: David Fries <david@...es.net>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: W1: w1_slave units, standardize 1C or .001C? Break API
David Fries wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:11:07PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Millikelvins would have the nice property of never being negative. :)
>
> True, but the sensor returns the value as a signed integer in C. That
> is where the earlier negative number problem was, it would have to do
> yet another conversion to go to Kelvin, and it would be just one more
> potential for error. Everyone knows that a bad conversion doomed at
> least one space craft, let's stick to Centigrade.
>
Uhm... the conversion is exact as long as you have at least centikelvin
precision (0 °C = 273.15 K by definition, and the multiplier is 1.)
>> Alternatively, centikelvins would fit nicely in 16 bits if anyone cares...
>>
>> 655.35 K = 382.20 °C = 719.96 °F
>
> The range for the sensor is -55 to 125 C, if an application didn't
> care about precision they could store it in a signed 8 bit value just
> fine.
This was more a comment as to it possibly being a convenient format for
more than this particular sensor.
The nice thing with kelvins is no need to worry about negative numbers
and something misparsing them, that's all.
I certainly did not imply that we should even consider use °F. That's
obviously ridiculous.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists