Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752840AbcCAJi3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 04:38:29 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:37066 "EHLO mail-wm0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751881AbcCAJiY (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 04:38:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56D559F4.3040606@posteo.de> References: <56D559F4.3040606@posteo.de> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 11:38:22 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xKy8i6v_3ltnvn6cq3m55WMqe9c Message-ID: Subject: Re: extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode From: Daniel Baluta To: Martin Kepplinger Cc: Jonathan Cameron , Daniel Baluta , Lars-Peter Clausen , Matt Ranostaj , Haneen Mohammed , Darshana Padmadas , mfuzzey@parkeon.com, "octavian.purdila@intel.com" , Irina Tirdea , Cristina Georgiana Opriceana , Vladimir Barinov , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 929 Lines: 29 On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Martin Kepplinger 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.