linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: accel: adxl380: Add support for 1 kHz sampling frequency

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bf02e226e8010e973ba1477259bedf0006f02292.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 13:26:57 +0000
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: Francesco Lavra <flavra@...libre.com>, Ramona Gradinariu	
 <ramona.gradinariu@...log.com>, Antoniu Miclaus
 <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>,  Lars-Peter Clausen	 <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,  Jonathan Cameron	
 <jic23@...nel.org>, David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Nuno
 Sá	 <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Andy Shevchenko
 <andy@...nel.org>, 	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: accel: adxl380: Add support for 1 kHz sampling
 frequency

On Thu, 2026-01-08 at 15:07 +0100, Francesco Lavra wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-01-08 at 13:45 +0000, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 16:39 +0100, Francesco Lavra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2026-01-07 at 13:56 +0000, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 3. Other thing that comes to mind is if it makes sense to allow
> > > > controlling odr if
> > > > Activity/Inactivity detection is enabled?
> > > 
> > > Disallowing odr control when activity detection is enabled could be an
> > > option, but what error code should be returned if the user tries to set
> > > the
> > > sampling frequency value when not allowed? -EBUSY?
> > 
> > I think it makes sense given the constrains on activity events. EBUSY
> > would be my choice as well.
> > Out of curiosity, do you know how the chip behaves if we change the odr
> > with activity enabled? Is it
> > just ignored?
> 
> The chip supports activity detection only when in low-power mode; changing
> the odr to a value that requires exiting from low-power mode would mean
> effectively disabling activity detection. The driver prevents this by
> forcing low-power mode whenever detection is enabled, which means that any
> odr changes by userspace do not take effect as long as detection is
> enabled.

Thx for the explanation!

- Nuno Sá