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

DISCUSSION Martin Kepplinger 3 participants 5 messages Mar 1, 2016 IIO

Share & tools

Martin Kepplinger

author

2016-03-01 08:59 UTC #0 lore raw

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

Daniel Baluta

2016-03-01 09:38 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 12 lines · Martin Kepplinger

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

Quoted 6 lines

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.

Martin Kepplinger

author

2016-03-01 09:49 UTC #2 lore raw

Am 2016-03-01 um 10:38 schrieb Daniel Baluta:

Quoted 23 lines · Martin Kepplinger

Quoted 12 lines
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
Quoted 6 lines
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?

Quoted 7 lines

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.

Crt Mori

2016-03-01 09:53 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 32 lines · Martin Kepplinger

Am 2016-03-01 um 10:38 schrieb Daniel Baluta:
Quoted 23 lines · Martin Kepplinger
Quoted 12 lines
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
Quoted 6 lines
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?
Quoted 7 lines
For example INV6500 has:
* sleep mode
* standby mode
* etc.
Daniel.

Quoted 8 lines

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?

Quoted 8 lines

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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Martin Kepplinger

author

2016-03-01 10:07 UTC #4 lore raw

Am 01.03.2016 10:53 schrieb Crt Mori:

Quoted 38 lines · Martin Kepplinger

Quoted 37 lines
Am 2016-03-01 um 10:38 schrieb Daniel Baluta:
Quoted 23 lines · Martin Kepplinger
Quoted 12 lines
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
Quoted 6 lines
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?
Quoted 7 lines
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.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 3 lines
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 :)

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 8 lines
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html