On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:50:25PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Hi Nicolin, > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:36:59PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:31:52PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > > One more question here, and this might sound a bit abuse of using > > > > the existing hwmon ABI: would it sound plausible to you that the > > > > driver powers down the chip when all three channels get disabled > > > > via in[123]_enable nodes? :) > > > > > > > > > > I would not call that an abuse, no. > > > > Hmm..do you mean that you aren't in favor of powering down the chip > > after all channels get disabled? > > > No, I was trying to say that I would be ok with powering down the chip. Great! > > I was thinking about having pm_runtime_get_sync()/put() for channel > > enabling/disabling routine of in[123]_enable. > > > > Not sure if that would work. It might end up waking the chip when a > sysfs attribute is accessed. It might be worth a try, though. > > It might also be possible to utilize userspace runtime attributes, > like setting runtime_enabled and setting the idle time before the sensor > shuts down. It would probably be necessary to implement not only > activating the sensor, though - we would also need to to ensure that > the first reading after activation waits until the first read is > complete. That's true. Thanks for the input! Nicolin
