Am 2016-03-01 um 10:38 schrieb Daniel Baluta: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Martin Kepplinger <martink@xxxxxxxxx> 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". 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
