linux-kernel - Re: [RFP] iio: Support of gesture sensor as a standard IIO sensor

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:   Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:31:23 +0000
From:   "Pandruvada, Srinivas" <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>
To:     "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
        "jic23@...nel.org" <jic23@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFP] iio: Support of gesture sensor as a standard IIO sensor

On Sat, 2018-01-20 at 15:19 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:40:26 +0100
> Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > 
> > > From an IIO sensor point of view A Gesture sensor:
> > > Outputs
> > > 	A pre defined activity type
> > > 		WAKE
> > > 		TILT
> > > 		GLANCE
> > > 		PICK_UP
> > > 		 &
> > > 		 more
> > > 
> > > 	A user defined activity type as "string"  
> > Pre-defined activities are easy.
> > 
> > But what about user-defined activities? We'd really like common
> > interface across different hardware... 
> Nasty to handle indeed.   It may be the best we can do initially
> at least is user_definedN or similar.  No way of constraining
> users from uploading something really odd that we can't define
> an interface for (hopping whilst holding a phone in
> their teeth?)
That's what I think also. We pre define few USER defined activities
Ids.

> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Inputs
> > > 	A raw binary cdev interface to download templates/patterns  
> > ....and "raw binary" will not work across different hardware :-(.
> Sadly there probably isn't much we can do about the format being
> custom.
> Best bet would ultimately be if there was at least a standard tool
> to generate the files for different devices...
> 
Correct. This will depend on  the firmware expected format . I think
ultimately it will be standardized.

Thanks,
Srinivas

> > 
> > 
> > 									
> > Pavel