[PATCH] Skip unconnected ppo2 sensors

[Anton Lundin]

On 09 September, 2015 - Jef Driesen wrote:

> On 2015-09-09 14:12, Anton Lundin wrote:
> >On 04 September, 2015 - Jef Driesen wrote:
> >
> >>On 2015-09-04 08:28, Jef Driesen wrote:
> >>>What I meant was something like the attached patch: If all three
> >>>values are zero, there are probably no sensors, and we ignore all
> >>>three ppo2 samples. But if there is at least one non-zero value, we
> >>>report all three values.
> >>
> >>Now with the patch attached!
> >
> >Yea, this one is a bit better than the quite blunt one i suggested, but
> >still it behaves weirdly in the case you would have one cell who is
> >unconnected (floating connection?) in the beginning and gets connected
> >a couple of samples in. Then the sensors would be re-numbered.
> >
> >This would be solved with having sensor id's =)
> 
> I'm probably misunderstanding, but my patch should avoid the
> renumbering problem. Assume we have 3 sensors, and one of them is
> disconnected, then we get something like this:
> 
>    ppO2: 0 Y Z   (Sensor 1 disconnected)
>    ppO2: X 0 Z   (Sensor 2 disconnected)
>    ppO2: X Y 0   (Sensor 3 disconnected)
> 
> if it gets reconnected again later:
> 
>    ppO2: X Y Z   (All sensors connected)
> 
> Thus the order is always preserved. The i-th sample value is always
> from the i-th sensor. Thus although there is no explicit sensor id,
> it's implicit in the sample index. Only when all three sensors are
> disconnected, we drop the ppO2 sample completely.
> 
> Am I missing something else?

Was just me missreading the patch.


Go with this one.


//Anton


-- 
Anton Lundin	+46702-161604