linux-kernel - Re: extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:38:22 +0200
From:	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>
To:	Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
Cc:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Matt Ranostaj <mranostay@...il.com>,
	Haneen Mohammed <hamohammed.sa@...il.com>,
	Darshana Padmadas <darshanapadmadas@...il.com>,
	mfuzzey@...keon.com,
	"octavian.purdila@...el.com" <octavian.purdila@...el.com>,
	Irina Tirdea <irina.tirdea@...el.com>,
	Cristina Georgiana Opriceana <cristina.opriceana@...il.com>,
	Vladimir Barinov <vladimir.barinov@...entembedded.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de> wrote:
> Would it be ok, if adding in_accelX_power_mode to a driver, to extend it
> so that in_accel_power_mode_available offers:
>
> low_noise low_power low_power_low_noise normal
>
> if there's a default "normal" mode, plus options to increase or decrease
> oversampling / power consumption for my device?
>
> Specifically I'm unsure about "low_power_low_noise" being enough
> user-friendly. The chip I work with just happens to offer these 4 modes.
> Would you leave out "low_power_low_noise" and go with
>
> low_noise low_power normal
>
> or is it not even desired to add "normal" to the list?
>
> Although strictly not necessary, I would add any new addition to the
> Documentation as well.

The problem with this is that is not uniform across sensors. What
chip are you looking at?

For example INV6500 has:
* sleep mode
* standby mode
* etc.

Daniel.