[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D839B84.1040201@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:51:00 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
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
--
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