[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025081815-encouraging-swift-df1d16@boujee-and-buff>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 16:00:20 -0400
From: Ben Collins <bcollins@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] iio: mcp9600: Add support for IIR filter
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 08:10:35PM -0500, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
> > > > case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
> > > > *val = 62;
> > > > *val2 = 500000;
> > > > return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;
> > > > +
> > > If you want the extra space put it in previous patch.
> > >
> > > > case IIO_CHAN_INFO_THERMOCOUPLE_TYPE:
> > > > *val = mcp9600_tc_types[data->thermocouple_type];
> > > > return IIO_VAL_CHAR;
> > > > +
> > > > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_LOW_PASS_FILTER_3DB_FREQUENCY:
> > > > + if (data->filter_level == 0)
> > >
> > > Return the current requested value. An error is just going to confuse
> > > someone who tried to write this before enabling the filter and then
> > > checked to see if the write was successful.
> >
> > I could not get a concensus on this. On the one hand, if a user sets a
> > value here, would they not assume that the filter was enabled? What
> > about cases where a filter_type can be more than one valid type with
> > different available coefficients for each? What should it show then?
>
> So I was thinking of this like other things with 'enables' such as events.
> For those you always set the value first. They don't really have a type
> field though (well they do but the ABI allows multiple at once unlike filters
> so we end up with a quite different looking ABI).
>
> Agreed it gets challenging with multiple filter types. If it weren't for
> advertising the range I'd suggest just stashing whatever was written and
> then mapping it to nearest possible when the filter type is set.
> That's what the ad7124 does for changing between filters anyway
> though oddly it doesn't seem to have a control for filter type.
>
> This is a good argument against the whole 'none' value for filter type
> - that's not much used so we could deprecate it for new drivers.
>
> I'm not particularly keen on filter_enable but seems we are coming back
> around to that option to avoid this corner case. Alternative being what
> you have here which isn't great for ease of use.
I'm somewhat wondering if the filter frequency and frequency_available
attributes should not even show in sysfs unless the filter_type was
something other than "none".
> So for next version let's go for that. Make sure to include Documentation
> in a separate patch though so it's easy to see an poke holes in.
Just to make sure I understand, you'd like to see a filter_enable
attribute and filter_type would not contain "none", then frequency and
frequency_available would always show something for whatever was in
filter_type?
> ABI design is a pain sometimes.
The epitome of being able to paint yourself into a corner.
--
Ben Collins
https://libjwt.io
https://github.com/benmcollins
--
3EC9 7598 1672 961A 1139 173A 5D5A 57C7 242B 22CF
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists