acassis commented on PR #17363: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17363#issuecomment-3567019767
> This is a nicely formatted PR with a good description, testing and well-written documentation! Nice job! > > I think the uORB addition seems fine, but I don't approve of merging this PR with the legacy sensor interface. I think this driver should be uORB-based only. > > NuttX is moving to just the uORB interface for sensors. Having multiple interfaces is confusing to users, difficult to maintain and adds more complexity. The way it's implemented in this PR adds many functions as part of the public namespace where they are traditionally private (`static`) in other driver implementations. It gives users access to device struct contents and register definitions. > > Is there a specific use case for the legacy sensor interface? If not, I suggest you move everything from `qmi8658_base.c` to `qmi8658_uorb.c` and remove all logic relating to the legacy sensor interface. The only public API for your sensor should be the `register` function, and possibly a few types if necessary for interacting with the sensor. Everything else should be done through existing uORB APIs/ioctl. @linguini1 I think char device sensor still important on NuttX because for boards with low resource adding uORB will be too much -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
