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

[Martin Kepplinger]

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