[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250813084444.1842413-1-y.alperbilgin@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 10:44:44 +0200
From: Yusuf Alper Bilgin <y.alperbilgin@...il.com>
To: krzk@...nel.org
Cc: Michael.Hennerich@...log.com,
andy@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
dlechner@...libre.com,
jic23@...nel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org,
lars@...afoo.de,
liambeguin@...il.com,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
nuno.sa@...log.com,
robh@...nel.org,
y.alperbilgin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: ltc2497: add docs for LTC2495
Hi Krzysztof,
Thank you for the review and guidance.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 07:04:00PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> What are the differences, why it cannot be made compatible with 2497
> (fallback)?
The LTC2495 offers a more advanced feature set compared to the LTC2497,
including:
- Adjustable input gain
- A selectable 50Hz/60Hz lowpass filter to reject line frequency noise
- Selectable speed modes
- An internal temperature sensor
All of these features are configured via a second I2C command byte
(listed in Table 4 of:
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/2495fe.pdf),
which changes the driver's communication protocol compared to the
single-byte commands of the LTC2497.
This patch series begins to support reading the internal temperature
sensor by implementing driver logic for the two-byte I2C command format
and exposing the IIO temperature channel. Therefore, I added a new
binding. Without the support for the temperature sensor and this
different command structure, a simple fallback would be sufficient.
Let me know if you agree with the reasoning to add the binding. If so, I
will update the commit messages in v2 to include this justification and
ensure they follow the imperative mood convention.
Best regards,
Alper
Powered by blists - more mailing lists