MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210715141742.15072-1-andrea.merello@gmail.com>
 <20211028101840.24632-1-andrea.merello@gmail.com> <20211028101840.24632-7-andrea.merello@gmail.com>
 <20211028120405.6ffb01d1@jic23-huawei> <CAN8YU5Orbbzq-eDxmrR00xHwXQ=0LU2G3_yEtHGMkbVhmdcqgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211114162032.425ab36d@jic23-huawei>
In-Reply-To: <20211114162032.425ab36d@jic23-huawei>
Reply-To: andrea.merello@gmail.com
From:   Andrea Merello <andrea.merello@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:42:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAN8YU5NO5mcrPa5ZCB3XnAb=3N3cyXZUT=gH5G+EbnM-En0a3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 06/10] iio: document bno055 private sysfs attributes
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Matt Ranostay <matt.ranostay@konsulko.com>,
        Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@gmail.com>,
        Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org>,
        Andrea Merello <andrea.merello@iit.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Sorry for the huge delay...

> There is still a units question though.  Should we express the ranges
> in _processed or _raw units?  Or do we make it explicit and call it
> rangeprocessed for example?  For some devices the range will naturally
> be expressed as the range of ADC raw values, so there is definite room
> for confusion if we don't make it clear in the name.
>
> I'm open to other suggestions of how we name this to avoid falling into
> any heffalump traps.

You are right: this might lead to confusion.. Making it explicit in
the name seems a good idea.

I've looked at other iio sysfs attributes in the DOC.  It seems  that
"thesh" and "roc" attributes allows for both preprocessed and raw
data: I found e.g. "<type>[Y][_name]_<raw|input>_thresh_value", but
the related "what" entries written above all seem to omit both "_raw"
and "_input"; I don't understand why.

In any case, maybe we can stick to that already-existent naming schema?

Assuming the pattern is correct, then wouldn't it be
"in_accel_raw_range"  (or "in_accel_x_raw_range", in case it could
have different values for each axis) or "in_accel_input_range" in case
range applies to preprocessed vals, etc ?


Andrea