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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <56D56536.9060301@posteo.de>
Date:	Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:47:34 +0100
From:	Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
To:	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>
Cc:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	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

Am 2016-03-01 um 10:38 schrieb Daniel Baluta:
> 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.
> 

I suspect these modes are something else. I'm looking at the mma8452
driver, and it also has "active" "standby" and "sleep" modes, but I'm
talking about different *power* (oversampling) configurations in
"active" mode, which is what said sysfs file is about.

But yes, it should be potenially uniform across sensors, which is why I
would probably only add "normal" to the list. At least I can imagine
that many devices have an oversampling mode called "normal".

A simple user interface is important so right now I think the best is to
leave it as it is, and not to add complexity and every possible option
for the user.