> If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we create two > drivers for the mpu3050 part. An MPU (Motion Processing Unit) driver and > a standalone Gyroscope driver. The MPU if present would turn each sensor > (accel, compass, gyro, pressure) into an MPU slave, load and configure the > firmware, and provide a user space interface for customization and runtime > communication with the Hideously Complicated Algorithms (HCA's). Its hard to judge with what has been explained so far but the device appears to be very different in the two operating modes so it might make sense to have it as two drivers (or one driver with two very distinct modes) > Each sensor driver would have two operating modes, standalone, and slave > to the MPU trying to re-use as much code as possible. Current drivers > that have a standalone interface would need the slave interface added, and > those that we've written would need the stand alone interface added. Can the slave interface appears to be an i²c bus too or is the interface too different (ie could the smart mode create an i²c bus that it uses to talk to the drivers to configure them for 'smart' mode) I'm not entirely sure at this point I understand quite how all the pieces fit together. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
