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  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:   Sun, 10 May 2020 20:11:55 +0200
From:   Saravanan Sekar <saravanan@...umiz.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, knaack.h@....de, lars@...afoo.de,
        pmeerw@...erw.net, broonie@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iio: accel: wsen-itds accel documentation

Hi Jonathan,

On 03/05/20 2:01 pm, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:39:42 +0200
> Saravanan Sekar<saravanan@...umiz.com>  wrote:
>
>> Add documentation about device operating mode and output data range
>> supported according to operating mode
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Saravanan Sekar<saravanan@...umiz.com>
>> ---
>>   .../ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio-wsen-itds       | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio-wsen-itds
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio-wsen-itds b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio-wsen-itds
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..5979f2b8aa1a
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio-wsen-itds
>> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
>> +What:		/sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device0/in_accel_samp_freq_available
>> +KernelVersion:	5.7
>> +Contact:	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
>> +Description:
>> +		Reading gives range of sample frequencies available for current operating mode
>> +		after one data has generated.
> This is standard ABI so should be the main docs, not here.
> It also takes absolute precedence over the power modes (as mentioned below, no
> standard userspace will be able to use those).  So if the frequency is
> only available in high perf mode, then we change to high perf mode.
>
>> +
>> +		Access: Read
>> +		Valid values: represented in Hz
>> +		- range [12.5, 1600] for high permormance mode
>> +		- range [1.6, 200] for normal/low power mode
>> +
>> +What:		/sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device0/operating_mode
>> +KernelVersion:	5.7
>> +Contact:	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
>> +Description:
>> +		Represents the device operating mode. High performance mode gives high output
>> +		data rate and low noise compared to normal mode. Normal mode consumes less
>> +		current.  In single shot device enters to lowpower after one data has
>> +		generated.
>> +
>> +		Access: Read, Write
>> +		Valid values: "lowpower", "normal", "high_perf", "single_shot"
> The issue with these sort of 'mode' interface is almost no userspace will ever use them.
> They are too unpredictable across different types of devices.
I don't understand how can we assume or say no one will use this. The 
device supports multiple features
and my understanding is driver should support according to device, not 
reverse. This is more or
less device specific and no sure idea about bring all the device in one 
umbrella.
> Some of these should also not be exposed to userspace anyway as they are about 'how'
> you are using the driver.  For example, if you aren't doing triggered capture then
> single_shot is almost always the correct option. Annoyingly I see high performance
> mode gives lower noise...
>
> So no need to expose single_shot to userspace.
>
> For the others we are just looking at different power vs speed and accuracy trade offs.
> Those are better exposed by what they effect.  Here the big control for that is
> sampling frequency.
>
> So if we assume the user is never going to touch this control (if it's even there)
> then we probably want to assume they want the best possible accuracy for whatever
> frequency they are running at.  So transition across the modes to provide that.
>
> Should we ever support low power mode?  It sounds nice on paper, but in reality
> userspace won't use so I suspect we should just drop it - certainly in an initial
> patch submission (as it will hold up acceptance).  Even if we did support
> it, as mentioned above ABI controls will take precedence so we are looking
> at a 'hint' not a control of mode.
>
> ABI is a pain, and we will put a lot of effort into not expanding it unless
> there is a good usecase plus no way of mapping to existing ABI.
Obviously without any reason or requirement device manufacture won't 
come-up these kind of feature.
I will change the driver as you don't accept at least for initial version.


Thanks,
Saravanan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists