Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Mon, 4 Jul 2022 23:51:32 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: adc: Add rtq6056 support |
| |
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 9:27 AM ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@gmail.com> wrote: > ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@gmail.com> 於 2022年7月4日 週一 上午11:16寫道: > > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> 於 2022年7月1日 週五 下午6:05寫道: > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 4:23 AM cy_huang <u0084500@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > > > + *val = DIV_ROUND_UP(1000000, sample_time); > > > > > > USEC_PER_SEC ? > > > > > No, sample time is (vshunt convesion time + vbus conversion time) * > > average sample. > > And the sample freq returns the unit by HZ (sample frequency per second) > > > The 'sample time' is unit by micro-second like as you mentioned.
Ah, then it should be MICRO, so we will get Hz.
> > > > + return IIO_VAL_INT; > > > > +}
...
> > > > + struct { > > > > + u16 vals[RTQ6056_MAX_CHANNEL]; > > > > + int64_t timestamp; > > > > + } data __aligned(8); > > > > > > Hmm... alignment of this struct will be at least 4 bytes, but > > > shouldn't we rather be sure that the timestamp member is aligned > > > properly? Otherwise this seems fragile and dependent on > > > RTQ6056_MAX_CHANNEL % 4 == 0. > > > > > Yap, from the 'max channel', it already guarantee this struct will be > > aligned at lease 4. > > Actually, It can be removed.
I think for the safest side it should be given to the timestamp member. No?
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |