iio: srf08: add support for similar devices and triggered buffers

This patch series adds support for:
- triggered buffer
- ultrasonic devices srf02 and srf10

Thanks for the review of Peter and Wolfram.

@Wolfram: please let me know, if you want a separate patch for [PATCH 1/5]

Changes in v3:
- introduce struct chip_info for device specific features
- remove locking error in srf08_trigger_handler()

Changes in v2:
- removed unnecessary patch "[PATCH 6/7] iio: srf08: add buffered to device mode"
- incorporated patch "[PATCH 7/7] iio: srf08: change text in Kconfig" where suitable
- changed order of patches to improve logical flow of changes
- improved distinction of sensor types

Andreas Klinger (5):
iio: srf08: add device tree binding for srf02 and srf10
iio: srf08: add device tree table
iio: srf08: add triggered buffer support
iio: srf08: add sensor type srf10
iio: srf08: add support for srf02 in i2c mode

 .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt    |   2 +
 drivers/iio/proximity/Kconfig                      |   8 +-
 drivers/iio/proximity/srf08.c                      | 227 ++++++++++++++++++---
 3 files changed, 203 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

2.1.4


-- 

I think what you should do is rebase to something fresher, such as the togreg branch in the iio repo. As you have discovered, master branch is lagging behind in that repo.

And I think Jonathan would like that as well, but perhaps it doesn't make a difference for him?

Cheers,
peda

Ah.. I always forget to do anything with the master branch. Should bring it up to date on mainline releases but never remember to do so.

The togreg branch is a better bet certainly. Most of the time latest round numbered release i.e. an rcX or final release of Linus' tree is fine as well. Occasionally multiple people are working on the same driver but it's fairly rare within a cycle.

Depending on HK airport wifi later I might see if I can push out something sensible as master. I think the nice web interface will get annoyed if I remove the master branch entirely...

Jonathan

I moved that file out of the i2c directory because I don't want to maintain it. I even wanted to delete it but Rob thought there is value in keeping it. So, it got moved. If this series had been rebased, get_maintainer.pl would have pointed you to the right people. I dunno the IIO workflow very well, and Jonathan didn't answer yet, but this base is too old IMO. Jonathan?

By the way, is it just me, or are the individual patches not in the same thread as the cover-letter?