Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:28:35 +0100 | From | Martin Kepplinger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iio: mma8452: add power mode sysfs co nfiguration |
| |
Am 14.11.2017 05:56 schrieb harinath Nampally: > Hi Martin, > >> But given your concerns, I would strip down this patch to only offer >> the >> already documented "low_noise" and "low_power" modes. It wouldn't be >> worth it to extend the ABI just because of this! > OK then we can map 'low_noise' to high resolution mode. But I am afraid > I can't test the functionality because I don't have proper instruments > to > measure the current draw(in microAmps) accurately. > >> I would like "oversampling" more than this "power_mode" too. For this >> driver it would be far more complicated to implement though. I doubt >> that it'll be done. power_mode is basically already there implicitely, >> and given that there *is* the ABI, we could offer it for free. > I think 'oversampling' is already implemented, as I see > 'case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OVERSAMPLING_RATIO:' > being handled which is basically setting the all 4 different power > modes. > If we also add 'power_mode', I think it would be like having two > different user interfaces for > same functionality. So I don't see much of value adding 'power_mode' as > well. > Please correct me if I am wrong. > > Thanks, > Harinath >
You're right. I should've looked more closely. oversampling is there and seems to work. No need to blow up this driver or let alone extend an ABI now. Let's drop this patch.
thanks martin
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> > wrote: >> On 2017-11-11 01:33, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 08:19:58 +0100 >>> Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> wrote: >>> >>>> This adds the power_mode sysfs interface to the device as documented >>>> in >>>> sysfs-bus-iio. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Note that I explicitely don't sign off on this. >>>> >>>> This is a starting point for anybody who can test it and check for >>>> correct >>>> API usage, and ABI correctness, as documented in >>>> Documentation/ABI/testing/sys-bus-iio >>>> (grep it for "power_mode"). The ABI doc probably would need an >>>> addition >>>> too, if the 4 power modes here seem generally useful (there are only >>>> 2 listed there)! >>>> >>>> So, if you can test this, feel free to set up a proper patch or >>>> two, and I'm happy to review. >>>> >>>> Please note that this patch is quite old. It really should be that >>>> simple >>>> as far as my understanding back then. We always list the available >>>> frequencies >>>> of the given power mode we are in, for example, already, and >>>> everything >>>> basically is in place except for the user interface. >>> >>> Hmm. A lot of devices support something along these lines. The issue >>> has always been - how is userspace to figure out what to do with it? >>> It's all very vague... >>> >>> Funnily enough - this used to be really common, but is becoming less >>> so >>> now - presumably because no one was using it much (or maybe I am >>> reading >>> too much into that ;) >>> >>> Now the question is whether it can be tied to better defined things? >>> >>> Here low noise restricts the range to 4g. Issue is that we don't >>> actually >>> have writeable _available attributes (which correspond to range in >>> this case). >>> >> >> Does it? Isn't it merely less oversampling. >> >>> Low power mode... This one is apparently oversampling. If possible >>> support >>> it as that as we have well defined interfaces for that. >>> >>> Jonathan. >> >> Ah, I remember; the oversampling settings was actually a reason why I >> hadn't submitted the patch :) The oversampling API would definitely be >> more accurate. >> >> I would like "oversampling" more than this "power_mode" too. For this >> driver it would be far more complicated to implement though. I doubt >> that it'll be done. power_mode is basically already there implicitely, >> and given that there *is* the ABI, we could offer it for free. >> >> But given your concerns, I would strip down this patch to only offer >> the >> already documented "low_noise" and "low_power" modes. It wouldn't be >> worth it to extend the ABI just because of this! >> >> Users would have a simple switch if they don't really *want* to know >> the >> details. I think it can be useful to just say "I don't care about >> power >> consuption. Be as accurate as possible" or "I just want this think to >> work. Use a little power as possible." Sure it's vage, but would it be >> useless?
| |