Message ID | 20240814113135.14575-1-abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Add light channel for LTR390 | expand |
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:01:32 +0530 Abhash Jha <abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > The first patch adds a new channel for the ALS feature of the sensor. > The same configuration of gain and resolution has to be provided for this > channel as well. As there are two IIO channels now, we would need to > switch the sensor's mode of operation depending on which sensor is being > accessed. Hence, mode switching is also provided. > > Then the second patch adds support for calculating `counts_per_uvi` based > on the current gain and resolution value. This is v7 mark 2. I'm confused, but I think I picked up this version (Seems I'd queued an earlier one and not mentioned it on the list though so I've dropped that in favour of this). > > Changes in v7: > - Changed the `ltr390_set_mode` function to do better error handling. > - Link to v6: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240803180950.32821-1-abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com/T/#t > > Changes in v6: > - Changed IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED to IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW > - Changed the scaling code > - Link to v5: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/CAG=0Rq+q0WJzMroYwQy-4Ng0aSkTvaw-FEMx68i3MqAZwfteCg@mail.gmail.com/T/#t > > Changes in v5: > - Replaced the IIO_INTENSITY channel with IIO_LIGHT channel > - We calculate the lux value directly using `als_data / (gain * int_time)` > - Provided a scale channel where the scale is 0.6 * WINDOW_FACTOR > - Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240730065822.5707-1-abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com/T/#m > > Changes in v4: > - Added "bitfield.h" include to fix `-Wimplicit-function-declaration`. > - Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240729115056.355466-1-abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com/ > > Changes in v3: > - Added cover letter to the patch series. > - Fixed indentation in the patch description. > - Patch specific changes are listed below. > > [PATCH v3 1/3] > - Cleaned up the spurious changes made in v2. > - ltr390_set_int_time and ltr390_set_gain now return -EINVAL to > indicate no match. > > [PATCH v3 2/3] > - Used enum ltr390_mode inside the ltr390_data struct. > - Refactored `ltr390_set_mode` function according to the comments in v2. > > [PATCH v3 3/3] > - Simplified the formula for `counts_per_uvi` calculation. > - Removed spurious whitespace changes introduced in v2. > > - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240728151957.310237-1-abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com/ > > Changes in v2: > - Split the single patch into 3 patches. > - Used FIELD_PREP to perform bit shifting. > - Used enum for mode selection instead of defines. > - Fixed indentation and whitespace issues pointed out in the comments > - Replaced `mutex_lock(&data->lock)` with `guard(mutex)(&data->lock)` > - Provided available values for gain and resolution via `read_avail` > instead of sysfs attributes. > - Refactored `ltr390_set_gain` and `ltr390_set_int_time`. > - Used early returns instead of single exit points. > > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240718104947.7384-1-abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com/ > > Regards, > Abhash > > Abhash Jha (2): > iio: light: ltr390: Add ALS channel and support for gain and > resolution > iio: light: ltr390: Calculate 'counts_per_uvi' dynamically > > drivers/iio/light/ltr390.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 100 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >
> This is v7 mark 2. I'm confused, but I think I picked up this version > (Seems I'd queued an earlier one and not mentioned it on the list though > so I've dropped that in favour of this). > Does that mean that you have picked up the patch 1/2 and 2/2 of the v7 series as well ? Thanks, Abhash
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 21:20:10 +0530 Abhash jha <abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is v7 mark 2. I'm confused, but I think I picked up this version > > (Seems I'd queued an earlier one and not mentioned it on the list though > > so I've dropped that in favour of this). > > > Does that mean that you have picked up the patch 1/2 and 2/2 of the v7 series > as well ? I think I have. But with two versions of v7 I'm not 100% sure which one got picked up. I've pushed out now as testing, so take a look. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio.git/log/?h=testing > > Thanks, > Abhash
> I think I have. But with two versions of v7 I'm not 100% sure which one got picked > up. I've pushed out now as testing, so take a look. > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio.git/log/?h=testing > > The two versions v7 patches are the same. I had sent the same thing again because I thought it might have gotten lost in your mail. My apologies for getting you confused. Thanks, Abhash
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 23:07:37 +0530 Abhash jha <abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think I have. But with two versions of v7 I'm not 100% sure which one got picked > > up. I've pushed out now as testing, so take a look. > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio.git/log/?h=testing > > > > The two versions v7 patches are the same. I had sent the same thing > again because > I thought it might have gotten lost in your mail. > My apologies for getting you confused. Ah. Never bother doing that. Just send a 'ping' to the original thread. Most maintainers now use a lot of automation so tend not to drop messages any more (it used to happen occasionally). Also convention is to wait at least 2 weeks before pinging. Jonathan > > Thanks, > Abhash