Needs to compile

This looks very similar to the SPL06 driver.

This looks like we should be re-using the SPLP06 driver for the SPA, particularly if they can be distinguished by their WHOAMI registers or some other fingerprinting we can do.

We seriously can't afford to copy a driver sideways - we're fast running out of flash on boards, and baros make their way into a lot of boards.

Can you think about whether it would be possible to augment the SPL driver, please?

I'm happy to take this to a DevCall to see if other devs disagree, but I don't think they will.

Needs to compile

This looks very similar to the SPL06 driver.

This looks like we should be re-using the SPLP06 driver for the SPA, particularly if they can be distinguished by their WHOAMI registers or some other fingerprinting we can do.

We seriously can't afford to copy a driver sideways - we're fast running out of flash on boards, and baros make their way into a lot of boards.

Can you think about whether it would be possible to augment the SPL driver, please?

I'm happy to take this to a DevCall to see if other devs disagree, but I don't think they will.

I also think it should be made into a driver, but the class name should not be SPL06.
What do you think the class name should be?SPX06？So the SPL06 driver needs to be rewritten.

Needs to compile
This looks very similar to the SPL06 driver.
This looks like we should be re-using the SPLP06 driver for the SPA, particularly if they can be distinguished by their WHOAMI registers or some other fingerprinting we can do.
We seriously can't afford to copy a driver sideways - we're fast running out of flash on boards, and baros make their way into a lot of boards.
Can you think about whether it would be possible to augment the SPL driver, please?
I'm happy to take this to a DevCall to see if other devs disagree, but I don't think they will.

I also think it should be made into a driver, but the class name should not be SPL06. What do you think the class name should be?SPX06？So the SPL06 driver needs to be rewritten.

Yes indeed, you could rename SPL06 to SPx06 (lower-case x) and only after creating a commit for that adjust it to support the SPA06

To be clear, if you rename a file, to it in a completely separate commit to everything else, including adjusting #includes. This ensures the history on the file is preserved.

To be clear, if you rename a file, to it in a completely separate commit to everything else, including adjusting #includes. This ensures the history on the file is preserved.

@peterbarker The SPA06 and SPL06 baro have been merged into an SPx06 driver and tested for narmal flight on the latest Copter4.5 branch.

does this need an extract_features.py update or will a REGEX catch the change?

does this need an extract_features.py update or will a REGEX catch the change?

It should be updated, I replaced everything related to SPL06 with SPx06.

Partial review only.

This is looking good. I might look at pulling out the renaming into a separate PR as, based on your work here, re-using the same code for the two devices it viable.

Updated and committed.

@radiolinkW I've extracted those rename commits over here: https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/pull/27992/commits - I should be able to get that in soon which will let me take this to DevCallEU tomorrow for a merge, hopefully.

@radiolinkW I've extracted those rename commits over here: https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/pull/27992/commits - I should be able to get that in soon which will let me take this to DevCallEU tomorrow for a merge, hopefully.

Thanks, won't the other three commits be merged?

@radiolinkW I've extracted those rename commits over here: https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/pull/27992/commits - I should be able to get that in soon which will let me take this to DevCallEU tomorrow for a merge, hopefully.

Thanks, won't the other three commits be merged?

Oh yes - but we'll get the other ones in first. That will make this one much easier to review on a DevCall to get it merged.

I also think it should be made into a driver, but the class name should not be SPL06. What do you think the class name should be?SPX06？So the SPL06 driver needs to be rewritten.

Unfortunately we both got this wrong, as it turns out.

tridge was very resistant to renaming this driver, and gave several good reasons why it would be a bad idea - mostly breaking things out-of-tree. He pointed out several places in our codebase where we simply add comments indicating what devices a driver handles.

I've taken the liberty of removing the rename of the files and the rename of the class commits from your branch and fixing the conflicts

I've force-pushed over your branch here.

If you're happy to proceed from this point I'll leave a review so we can get this merged... also, testing that I haven't broken anything when I resolved those conflicts would be a good idea!

I also think it should be made into a driver, but the class name should not be SPL06. What do you think the class name should be?SPX06？So the SPL06 driver needs to be rewritten.

Unfortunately we both got this wrong, as it turns out.

tridge was very resistant to renaming this driver, and gave several good reasons why it would be a bad idea - mostly breaking things out-of-tree. He pointed out several places in our codebase where we simply add comments indicating what devices a driver handles.

I've taken the liberty of removing the rename of the files and the rename of the class commits from your branch and fixing the conflicts

I've force-pushed over your branch here.

If you're happy to proceed from this point I'll leave a review so we can get this merged... also, testing that I haven't broken anything when I resolved those conflicts would be a good idea!

That's also good, there won't be much change.

But I didn't see a comment in the top of the SPL06 driver saying it supports SPA06 as well, also, RadiolinkPIX6 does not enable Background mode by default.

Updated and committed.

Have you tested an SPL06 device to ensure it continues to function normally after these changes?

Please outline the advantages of using the "background" mode of the SPA06...

The latest commit has been tested for narmal flight on the latest Copter4.5 branch.

Background mode only measures continuously, without manually enabling measurements periodically.

@radiolinkW have you tested a device with an SPL06 in it?

I'm marking this for discussion DevCallEU, and that question will be asked :-)

I've tested this on a MatekH7A6 which has an SPL06 baro on it - no functionality change I could see.

@radiolinkW have you tested a device with an SPL06 in it?

I'm marking this for discussion DevCallEU, and that question will be asked :-)

Tested on RadiolinkPIX6 with SPA06 and flying normally.

Merged, thanks!

Thanks! @peterbarker @tridge
Why only merge into the master branch instead of other release branches，such as the Copter 4.5 branch?
This has been merged for a long time.

Hello, does this change also influence the SPL001 update rate?

I have Baro-0 /Baro-4 i.e. Baro Bad Health issues on a plane while circling over a field for 30minutes and I believe it is due to the baro having the same value for 2 seconds.

Meaning to ask, does it make sense to test with AP4.6Beta1 or write an Issue Report directly?