Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] input: add driver for Bosch Sensortec's BMA150 accelerometer

quoted

+		values represent the range given as +/- G.
+		Possible values are: 2, 4, 8.
+
+		Reading: returns the current acceleration range.
+
+		Writing: sets a new acceleration range.

Same comment as last time - these values are not discoverable so it
should set the nearest bigger range.

And same answer as last time - The values can be retreived by doing a:
cat range. This whole idea comes from a review comment that Jonathan Cameron
gave on your bma023 driver [1].
If we could agree on how these values should be represented I will be glad
to fix it! Dmitry, any preferences?

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-input/msg14271.html

quoted

+	for (i = 0, ret = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(bw_val); i++)
+		ret += sprintf(buf + ret,
+			(bw_val[i].reg == bw) ? "[%d] " : "%d ",
+			bw_val[i].value);

sysfs nodes should really be single values

Once again it's a previous comment from Jonathan [1]. Please specify how
you want this and I'll fix it.

quoted

+static const struct i2c_device_id bma150_id[] = {
+	{ "bma150", 0 },
+	{ "smb380", 0 },

bma023 ?

As mentioned earlier bma023 is not an official product name from Bosch Sensortec. Hence,
there will be no datasheet available or references from Bosch Sensortec. IMHO it would be
confusing to add it.
 

It also doesn't expose the thresholds or support interrupts which the
one I posted did.

We were told by Bosch S that the interrupt is triggered every 333 us (data ready) which would
pretty much flood the irq handler.
However, if this is stopping the patch we can add it. Would it be acceptable to have a driver
that supports both a polling and irq driven setup, e.g. by checking if the .irq is non zero?

So while its better it still seems incomplete - its certainly nowhere
near where it can replace the one I posted months ago and doesn't seem
to
be making any headway.

Dmitry shall I repost the intel one - at this point I think it would
be a
better starting point as it supports more features, interrupts and the
like although it's not perfect either.

My hope is that we can sort out the differences before I post v4. Dmitry, if you have time
could you please give an objective review of the patch?

Best regards,
 Eric

http://www.unixphere.com