Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1346463 > unrolled thread

extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> - 2016-03-01 10:10 +0100
    Re: extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@intel.com> - 2016-03-01 10:40 +0100
      Re: extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> - 2016-03-01 10:50 +0100
        Re: extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode Crt Mori <cmo@melexis.com> - 2016-03-01 11:00 +0100
          Re: extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> - 2016-03-01 11:10 +0100

#1346463 — extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1346478

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1346486

Am 2016-03-01 um 10:38 schrieb Daniel Baluta:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1346488

On 1 March 2016 at 10:47, Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> wrote:
> Am 2016-03-01 um 10:38 schrieb Daniel Baluta:
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> 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".

If that is oversampling option then why don't you just use that as a
setup? Power mode does not sound like oversampling to me... Maybe you
should use a sampling_frequency parameter instead?

>
> 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@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1346501

Am 01.03.2016 10:53 schrieb Crt Mori:
> On 1 March 2016 at 10:47, Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> wrote:
>> Am 2016-03-01 um 10:38 schrieb Daniel Baluta:
>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Martin Kepplinger 
>>> <martink@posteo.de> 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".
> 
> If that is oversampling option then why don't you just use that as a
> setup? Power mode does not sound like oversampling to me... Maybe you
> should use a sampling_frequency parameter instead?
> 

well, it doesn't affect the sampling frequency. Oversampling is a way 
chips get
more accurate values and use more power. But it's fine. It comes down to
trying patches and see what happens anyways :)

>> 
>> 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@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web