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 10:53:15 +0100
From:	Crt Mori <cmo@...exis.com>
To:	Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
Cc:	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>,
	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

On 1 March 2016 at 10:47, Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de> wrote:
> 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".

If that is oversampling option then why don't you just use that as a
setup? Power mode does not sound like oversampling to me... Maybe you
should use a sampling_frequency parameter instead?

>
> 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.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html