While calculating the compensation of the humidity there are negative
values interpreted as unsigned because of unsigned variables used.
These values need to be casted to signed as indicated by the documentation
of the sensor.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <[email protected]>
---
drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c b/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c
index 4d18826ac63c..73308f0ea260 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c
@@ -177,9 +177,9 @@ static u32 bmp280_compensate_humidity(struct bmp280_data *data,
var = ((s32)data->t_fine) - 76800;
var = ((((adc_humidity << 14) - (H4 << 20) - (H5 * var)) + 16384) >> 15)
- * (((((((var * H6) >> 10) * (((var * H3) >> 11) + 32768)) >> 10)
- + 2097152) * H2 + 8192) >> 14);
- var -= ((((var >> 15) * (var >> 15)) >> 7) * H1) >> 4;
+ * (((((((var * H6) >> 10) * (((var * (s32)H3) >> 11) + 32768))
+ >> 10) + 2097152) * H2 + 8192) >> 14);
+ var -= ((((var >> 15) * (var >> 15)) >> 7) * (s32)H1) >> 4;
return var >> 12;
};
--
2.1.4
--
On 27/03/17 11:06, Andreas Klinger wrote:
> While calculating the compensation of the humidity there are negative
> values interpreted as unsigned because of unsigned variables used.
> These values need to be casted to signed as indicated by the documentation
> of the sensor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <[email protected]>
Looks superficially right to me, but would like an Ack from Linus Walleij.
Linus?
J
> ---
> drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c b/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c
> index 4d18826ac63c..73308f0ea260 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/pressure/bmp280-core.c
> @@ -177,9 +177,9 @@ static u32 bmp280_compensate_humidity(struct bmp280_data *data,
>
> var = ((s32)data->t_fine) - 76800;
> var = ((((adc_humidity << 14) - (H4 << 20) - (H5 * var)) + 16384) >> 15)
> - * (((((((var * H6) >> 10) * (((var * H3) >> 11) + 32768)) >> 10)
> - + 2097152) * H2 + 8192) >> 14);
> - var -= ((((var >> 15) * (var >> 15)) >> 7) * H1) >> 4;
> + * (((((((var * H6) >> 10) * (((var * (s32)H3) >> 11) + 32768))
> + >> 10) + 2097152) * H2 + 8192) >> 14);
> + var -= ((((var >> 15) * (var >> 15)) >> 7) * (s32)H1) >> 4;
>
> return var >> 12;
> };
>
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27/03/17 11:06, Andreas Klinger wrote:
>> While calculating the compensation of the humidity there are negative
>> values interpreted as unsigned because of unsigned variables used.
>> These values need to be casted to signed as indicated by the documentation
>> of the sensor.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <[email protected]>
>
> Looks superficially right to me, but would like an Ack from Linus Walleij.
I didn't work on these calculations, only infrastructure for the driver
but FWIW:
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
Matt Ranostay @Intel is the person you probably want to ACK it though,
he added the humidity calculations :)
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Linus Walleij <[email protected]> schrieb am Sun, 02. Apr 16:56:
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 27/03/17 11:06, Andreas Klinger wrote:
> >> While calculating the compensation of the humidity there are negative
> >> values interpreted as unsigned because of unsigned variables used.
> >> These values need to be casted to signed as indicated by the documentation
> >> of the sensor.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <[email protected]>
> >
> > Looks superficially right to me, but would like an Ack from Linus Walleij.
>
> I didn't work on these calculations, only infrastructure for the driver
> but FWIW:
> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
>
> Matt Ranostay @Intel is the person you probably want to ACK it though,
> he added the humidity calculations :)
It just turned out that there must be another error in the calculation. I'll fix
and test it first.
When i'm done i'll send a new version of the patch.
Andreas
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
--
On 2 April 2017 18:29:49 BST, Andreas Klinger <[email protected]> wrote:
>Linus Walleij <[email protected]> schrieb am Sun, 02. Apr 16:56:
>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> > On 27/03/17 11:06, Andreas Klinger wrote:
>> >> While calculating the compensation of the humidity there are
>negative
>> >> values interpreted as unsigned because of unsigned variables used.
>> >> These values need to be casted to signed as indicated by the
>documentation
>> >> of the sensor.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > Looks superficially right to me, but would like an Ack from Linus
>Walleij.
>>
>> I didn't work on these calculations, only infrastructure for the
>driver
>> but FWIW:
>> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
>>
>> Matt Ranostay @Intel is the person you probably want to ACK it
>though,
>> he added the humidity calculations :)
He's now at Konsulko.
Ccd
>
>It just turned out that there must be another error in the calculation.
>I'll fix
>and test it first.
>
>When i'm done i'll send a new version of the patch.
>
>Andreas
>
>>
>> Yours,
>> Linus Walleij
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Andreas Klinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Linus Walleij <[email protected]> schrieb am Sun, 02. Apr 16:56:
>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On 27/03/17 11:06, Andreas Klinger wrote:
>> >> While calculating the compensation of the humidity there are negative
>> >> values interpreted as unsigned because of unsigned variables used.
>> >> These values need to be casted to signed as indicated by the documentation
>> >> of the sensor.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > Looks superficially right to me, but would like an Ack from Linus Walleij.
>>
>> I didn't work on these calculations, only infrastructure for the driver
>> but FWIW:
>> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
>>
>> Matt Ranostay @Intel is the person you probably want to ACK it though,
>> he added the humidity calculations :)
>
> It just turned out that there must be another error in the calculation. I'll fix
> and test it first.
>
> When i'm done i'll send a new version of the patch.
>
Ok will hold off till review till the next patchset... BTW this
datasheet's calculations made my eyes bleed so it is quiet likely it
has bugs...
Thanks,
Matt
> Andreas
>
>>
>> Yours,
>> Linus Walleij
>
> --
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Matt Ranostay
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Andreas Klinger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Linus Walleij <[email protected]> schrieb am Sun, 02. Apr 16:56:
>>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > On 27/03/17 11:06, Andreas Klinger wrote:
>>> >> While calculating the compensation of the humidity there are negative
>>> >> values interpreted as unsigned because of unsigned variables used.
>>> >> These values need to be casted to signed as indicated by the documentation
>>> >> of the sensor.
>>> >>
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <[email protected]>
>>> >
>>> > Looks superficially right to me, but would like an Ack from Linus Walleij.
>>>
>>> I didn't work on these calculations, only infrastructure for the driver
>>> but FWIW:
>>> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Matt Ranostay @Intel is the person you probably want to ACK it though,
>>> he added the humidity calculations :)
>>
>> It just turned out that there must be another error in the calculation. I'll fix
>> and test it first.
>>
>> When i'm done i'll send a new version of the patch.
>>
>
> Ok will hold off till review till the next patchset... BTW this
> datasheet's calculations made my eyes bleed so it is quiet likely it
> has bugs...
Hmm the datatypes you are casting to s32 are already signed
integers... Interested in what you found on what the actual bug is.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>> Andreas
>>
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Linus Walleij
>>
>> --
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Matt,
i've extracted the error condition in a small userspace application for
demonstration. Just compile and see that in this case the variable H3 is zero
but the whole term evaluates differently if treated as unsigned or signed.
The whole example including the values of the variables are taken from the real
driver.
Andreas
Now the example:
---
/*
* humidity.c
* this test program is just for demonstrating the difference in the
* calculation of humidity compensation with BME280 sensor
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
* published by the Free Software Foundation.
*
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argn, char* argv[])
{
int adc_humidity = 28275;
int t_fine = 50623;
unsigned int H1 = 75, H3 = 0;
int H2 = 360, H4 = 324, H5 = 0, H6 = 30;
int var;
var = -26177;
/* extracted errornous term with cast */
printf("with cast: %d\n", (((var * H6) >> 10) * (((var * (int)H3) >> 11)
+ (int)32768)) >> 10);
/* extracted errornous term now without a cast */
printf("without cast: %d\n", (((var * H6) >> 10) * (((var * H3) >> 11)
+ 32768)) >> 10);
printf("\n");
printf("t_fine: %d; humidity: %d\nH: %d; %d; %d; %d; %d; %d\n",
t_fine, adc_humidity, H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6);
printf("\n");
/* the whole example taken from the driver */
/* with the cast as proposed by the documentation */
var = ((int)t_fine) - (int)76800;
var = ((((adc_humidity << 14) - (H4 << 20) - (H5 * var))
+ (int)16384) >> 15) * (((((((var * H6) >> 10)
* (((var * (int)H3) >> 11) + (int)32768)) >> 10)
+ (int)2097152) * H2 + 8192) >> 14);
var -= ((((var >> 15) * (var >> 15)) >> 7) * (int)H1) >> 4;
printf("with cast: var: %d\n", var>>12);
printf("\n");
/* now the same calculation without the cast */
var = (t_fine) - 76800;
var = ((((adc_humidity << 14) - (H4 << 20) - (H5 * var))
+ 16384) >> 15) * (((((((var * H6) >> 10)
* (((var * H3) >> 11) + 32768)) >> 10)
+ 2097152) * H2 + 8192) >> 14);
var -= ((((var >> 15) * (var >> 15)) >> 7) * H1) >> 4;
printf("without cast: var: %d\n", var>>12);
return 0;
}
---
Output:
with cast: -24544
without cast: 4169760
t_fine: 50623; humidity: 28275
H: 75; 360; 0; 324; 0; 30
with cast: var: 41671
without cast: var: 124497
---
Matt Ranostay <[email protected]> schrieb am Thu, 06. Apr 23:13:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Matt Ranostay
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Andreas Klinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Linus Walleij <[email protected]> schrieb am Sun, 02. Apr 16:56:
> >>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> > On 27/03/17 11:06, Andreas Klinger wrote:
> >>> >> While calculating the compensation of the humidity there are negative
> >>> >> values interpreted as unsigned because of unsigned variables used.
> >>> >> These values need to be casted to signed as indicated by the documentation
> >>> >> of the sensor.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <[email protected]>
> >>> >
> >>> > Looks superficially right to me, but would like an Ack from Linus Walleij.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't work on these calculations, only infrastructure for the driver
> >>> but FWIW:
> >>> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> Matt Ranostay @Intel is the person you probably want to ACK it though,
> >>> he added the humidity calculations :)
> >>
> >> It just turned out that there must be another error in the calculation. I'll fix
> >> and test it first.
> >>
> >> When i'm done i'll send a new version of the patch.
> >>
> >
> > Ok will hold off till review till the next patchset... BTW this
> > datasheet's calculations made my eyes bleed so it is quiet likely it
> > has bugs...
>
> Hmm the datatypes you are casting to s32 are already signed
> integers... Interested in what you found on what the actual bug is.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >> Andreas
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Yours,
> >>> Linus Walleij
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> >> the body of a message to [email protected]
> >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Andreas Klinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> i've extracted the error condition in a small userspace application for
> demonstration. Just compile and see that in this case the variable H3 is zero
> but the whole term evaluates differently if treated as unsigned or signed.
>
> The whole example including the values of the variables are taken from the real
> driver.
>
Ok now I see what you are referencing from the datasheet, and can
confirm the values are incorrect.
Just a suggestion rather than have all those casts it would be easier
to just change H1 and H3 types
to signed integers.
Thanks,
Matt
> Andreas
>
>
> Now the example:
>
> ---
>
> /*
> * humidity.c
> * this test program is just for demonstrating the difference in the
> * calculation of humidity compensation with BME280 sensor
> *
> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> *
> */
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> int main(int argn, char* argv[])
> {
> int adc_humidity = 28275;
> int t_fine = 50623;
> unsigned int H1 = 75, H3 = 0;
> int H2 = 360, H4 = 324, H5 = 0, H6 = 30;
> int var;
>
> var = -26177;
> /* extracted errornous term with cast */
> printf("with cast: %d\n", (((var * H6) >> 10) * (((var * (int)H3) >> 11)
> + (int)32768)) >> 10);
> /* extracted errornous term now without a cast */
> printf("without cast: %d\n", (((var * H6) >> 10) * (((var * H3) >> 11)
> + 32768)) >> 10);
>
> printf("\n");
> printf("t_fine: %d; humidity: %d\nH: %d; %d; %d; %d; %d; %d\n",
> t_fine, adc_humidity, H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6);
> printf("\n");
>
> /* the whole example taken from the driver */
> /* with the cast as proposed by the documentation */
> var = ((int)t_fine) - (int)76800;
> var = ((((adc_humidity << 14) - (H4 << 20) - (H5 * var))
> + (int)16384) >> 15) * (((((((var * H6) >> 10)
> * (((var * (int)H3) >> 11) + (int)32768)) >> 10)
> + (int)2097152) * H2 + 8192) >> 14);
> var -= ((((var >> 15) * (var >> 15)) >> 7) * (int)H1) >> 4;
>
> printf("with cast: var: %d\n", var>>12);
> printf("\n");
>
> /* now the same calculation without the cast */
> var = (t_fine) - 76800;
> var = ((((adc_humidity << 14) - (H4 << 20) - (H5 * var))
> + 16384) >> 15) * (((((((var * H6) >> 10)
> * (((var * H3) >> 11) + 32768)) >> 10)
> + 2097152) * H2 + 8192) >> 14);
> var -= ((((var >> 15) * (var >> 15)) >> 7) * H1) >> 4;
>
> printf("without cast: var: %d\n", var>>12);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> ---
>
> Output:
>
> with cast: -24544
> without cast: 4169760
>
> t_fine: 50623; humidity: 28275
> H: 75; 360; 0; 324; 0; 30
>
> with cast: var: 41671
>
> without cast: var: 124497
>
> ---
>
> Matt Ranostay <[email protected]> schrieb am Thu, 06. Apr 23:13:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Matt Ranostay
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Andreas Klinger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Linus Walleij <[email protected]> schrieb am Sun, 02. Apr 16:56:
>> >>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> > On 27/03/17 11:06, Andreas Klinger wrote:
>> >>> >> While calculating the compensation of the humidity there are negative
>> >>> >> values interpreted as unsigned because of unsigned variables used.
>> >>> >> These values need to be casted to signed as indicated by the documentation
>> >>> >> of the sensor.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <[email protected]>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Looks superficially right to me, but would like an Ack from Linus Walleij.
>> >>>
>> >>> I didn't work on these calculations, only infrastructure for the driver
>> >>> but FWIW:
>> >>> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
>> >>>
>> >>> Matt Ranostay @Intel is the person you probably want to ACK it though,
>> >>> he added the humidity calculations :)
>> >>
>> >> It just turned out that there must be another error in the calculation. I'll fix
>> >> and test it first.
>> >>
>> >> When i'm done i'll send a new version of the patch.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ok will hold off till review till the next patchset... BTW this
>> > datasheet's calculations made my eyes bleed so it is quiet likely it
>> > has bugs...
>>
>> Hmm the datatypes you are casting to s32 are already signed
>> integers... Interested in what you found on what the actual bug is.
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>> >> Andreas
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yours,
>> >>> Linus Walleij
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> --
>> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
>> >> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> --
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Andreas Klinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> > i've extracted the error condition in a small userspace application for
> > demonstration. Just compile and see that in this case the variable H3 is zero
> > but the whole term evaluates differently if treated as unsigned or signed.
> >
> > The whole example including the values of the variables are taken from the real
> > driver.
> >
>
> Ok now I see what you are referencing from the datasheet, and can
> confirm the values are incorrect.
>
> Just a suggestion rather than have all those casts it would be easier
> to just change H1 and H3 types
> to signed integers.
>
That's right. But i wanted to keep close to the documentation.
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> > Now the example:
> >
> > ---
> >
> > /*
> > * humidity.c
> > * this test program is just for demonstrating the difference in the
> > * calculation of humidity compensation with BME280 sensor
> > *
> > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > *
> > */
> >
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <stdlib.h>
> >
> > int main(int argn, char* argv[])
> > {
> > int adc_humidity = 28275;
> > int t_fine = 50623;
> > unsigned int H1 = 75, H3 = 0;
> > int H2 = 360, H4 = 324, H5 = 0, H6 = 30;
> > int var;
> >
> > var = -26177;
> > /* extracted errornous term with cast */
> > printf("with cast: %d\n", (((var * H6) >> 10) * (((var * (int)H3) >> 11)
> > + (int)32768)) >> 10);
> > /* extracted errornous term now without a cast */
> > printf("without cast: %d\n", (((var * H6) >> 10) * (((var * H3) >> 11)
> > + 32768)) >> 10);
> >
> > printf("\n");
> > printf("t_fine: %d; humidity: %d\nH: %d; %d; %d; %d; %d; %d\n",
> > t_fine, adc_humidity, H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6);
> > printf("\n");
> >
> > /* the whole example taken from the driver */
> > /* with the cast as proposed by the documentation */
> > var = ((int)t_fine) - (int)76800;
> > var = ((((adc_humidity << 14) - (H4 << 20) - (H5 * var))
> > + (int)16384) >> 15) * (((((((var * H6) >> 10)
> > * (((var * (int)H3) >> 11) + (int)32768)) >> 10)
> > + (int)2097152) * H2 + 8192) >> 14);
> > var -= ((((var >> 15) * (var >> 15)) >> 7) * (int)H1) >> 4;
> >
> > printf("with cast: var: %d\n", var>>12);
> > printf("\n");
> >
> > /* now the same calculation without the cast */
> > var = (t_fine) - 76800;
> > var = ((((adc_humidity << 14) - (H4 << 20) - (H5 * var))
> > + 16384) >> 15) * (((((((var * H6) >> 10)
> > * (((var * H3) >> 11) + 32768)) >> 10)
> > + 2097152) * H2 + 8192) >> 14);
> > var -= ((((var >> 15) * (var >> 15)) >> 7) * H1) >> 4;
> >
> > printf("without cast: var: %d\n", var>>12);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Output:
> >
> > with cast: -24544
> > without cast: 4169760
> >
> > t_fine: 50623; humidity: 28275
> > H: 75; 360; 0; 324; 0; 30
> >
> > with cast: var: 41671
> >
> > without cast: var: 124497
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Matt Ranostay <[email protected]> schrieb am Thu, 06. Apr 23:13:
> >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Matt Ranostay
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Andreas Klinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Linus Walleij <[email protected]> schrieb am Sun, 02. Apr 16:56:
> >> >>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>> > On 27/03/17 11:06, Andreas Klinger wrote:
> >> >>> >> While calculating the compensation of the humidity there are negative
> >> >>> >> values interpreted as unsigned because of unsigned variables used.
> >> >>> >> These values need to be casted to signed as indicated by the documentation
> >> >>> >> of the sensor.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <[email protected]>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Looks superficially right to me, but would like an Ack from Linus Walleij.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I didn't work on these calculations, only infrastructure for the driver
> >> >>> but FWIW:
> >> >>> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Matt Ranostay @Intel is the person you probably want to ACK it though,
> >> >>> he added the humidity calculations :)
> >> >>
> >> >> It just turned out that there must be another error in the calculation. I'll fix
> >> >> and test it first.
> >> >>
> >> >> When i'm done i'll send a new version of the patch.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Ok will hold off till review till the next patchset... BTW this
> >> > datasheet's calculations made my eyes bleed so it is quiet likely it
> >> > has bugs...
> >>
> >> Hmm the datatypes you are casting to s32 are already signed
> >> integers... Interested in what you found on what the actual bug is.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Matt
> >> >
> >> >> Andreas
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Yours,
> >> >>> Linus Walleij
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> --
> >> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> >> >> the body of a message to [email protected]
> >> >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
> > --
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Andreas Klinger
Grabenreith 27
84508 Burgkirchen
+49 8623 919966
[email protected]
http://www.it-klinger.de
http://www.grabenreith.de