Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752695AbcCAJBE (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 04:01:04 -0500 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:54584 "EHLO mout01.posteo.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752076AbcCAJBC (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 04:01:02 -0500 From: Martin Kepplinger Subject: extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 To: Jonathan Cameron , daniel.baluta@intel.com, lars@metafoo.de, mranostay@gmail.com, hamohammed.sa@gmail.com, darshanapadmadas@gmail.com, mfuzzey@parkeon.com, octavian.purdila@intel.com, irina.tirdea@intel.com, cristina.opriceana@gmail.com, vladimir.barinov@cogentembedded.com Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" Message-ID: <56D559F4.3040606@posteo.de> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:59:32 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 702 Lines: 21 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. thanks martin