Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 9 Mar 2019 17:33:46 +0000
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Cc:     Robert Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@gmail.com>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-iio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iio: light: Add driver for ap3216c
Message-ID: <20190309173346.2a1ea4f8@archlinux>
In-Reply-To: <CAGngYiW0Sf1mg-F18p_NeJZUMsvvceRn4HvNXAkdLaS9AfFDMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <42dbbd7568e4216a320c6fd617bd91c1ee045af0.1551037168.git.bobbyeshleman@gmail.com>
        <CAGngYiUkdehPwyN-oEBrUOpBzvkHef=TwyjCXKYawB54pmAdVg@mail.gmail.com>
        <20190303143813.3b5a3f22@archlinux>
        <CAGngYiW0Sf1mg-F18p_NeJZUMsvvceRn4HvNXAkdLaS9AfFDMQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 11:25:01 -0500
Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 9:38 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. Just been thinking a bit about the events on here and wondered
> > if it is possible to mask them through careful use of the threshold
> > values - i.e. can we stop the hardware generating the interrupts for
> > the ones we don't want. It would be unusual for hardware to be
> > designed where this wasn't possible.  
> 
> Excellent point! People with power / battery constraints take a dim view of
> receiving interrupts when no-one wants them. So disabling them in h/w
> is definitely the way to go, if possible.
> 
> And yes, this also makes a non-issue of thresh_en visibility concerns, if any.
> 
> >
> > Alternatively if you have a scope or equivalent to verify if it is doing
> > these as a multi byte read and working that would be even better.
> > It is not uncommon for hardware to implement fairly standard i2c features
> > like this and not document them because they weren't what the test code
> > the docs writer got given does! (may not be true here of course)  
> 
> Or alternatively, the current chip rev supports undocumented multi-reads,
> and the next revision silently drops support, thereby breaking the driver...
> Been there, done that, got the T-shirt :(

Indeed it's a risk.  Sadly hardware guys never have a 'we mustn't break
software' rule like we do for userspace! 

Jonathan