Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: add motion report function and call from interrupt

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:51:13 +0200
Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com> wrote:

> On 09/09/2019 13.28, Sean Nyekjaer wrote:
> > Report iio motion events to iio subsystem
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com>
> > ---
> > Changes since v4:
> >   * Updated bitmask as pr Jonathans comments
> > 
> > Changes since v5:
> >   * None
> > 
> >   drivers/iio/imu/st_lsm6dsx/st_lsm6dsx.h      |  5 ++
> >   drivers/iio/imu/st_lsm6dsx/st_lsm6dsx_core.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
> >   
> [...]
> >   
> > +void st_lsm6dsx_report_motion_event(struct st_lsm6dsx_hw *hw, int data)
> > +{
> > +	s64 timestamp = iio_get_time_ns(hw->iio_devs[ST_LSM6DSX_ID_ACC]);
> > +
> > +	if (data & hw->settings->event_settings.wakeup_src_z_mask)
> > +		iio_push_event(hw->iio_devs[ST_LSM6DSX_ID_ACC],
> > +			       IIO_MOD_EVENT_CODE(IIO_ACCEL,
> > +						  0,
> > +						  IIO_MOD_Z,
> > +						  IIO_EV_TYPE_THRESH,
> > +						  IIO_EV_DIR_EITHER),
> > +						  timestamp);
> > +
> > +	if (data & hw->settings->event_settings.wakeup_src_x_mask)
> > +		iio_push_event(hw->iio_devs[ST_LSM6DSX_ID_ACC],
> > +			       IIO_MOD_EVENT_CODE(IIO_ACCEL,
> > +						  0,
> > +						  IIO_MOD_Y,
> > +						  IIO_EV_TYPE_THRESH,
> > +						  IIO_EV_DIR_EITHER),
> > +						  timestamp);
> > +
> > +	if (data & hw->settings->event_settings.wakeup_src_x_mask)
> > +		iio_push_event(hw->iio_devs[ST_LSM6DSX_ID_ACC],
> > +			       IIO_MOD_EVENT_CODE(IIO_ACCEL,
> > +						  0,
> > +						  IIO_MOD_X,
> > +						  IIO_EV_TYPE_THRESH,
> > +						  IIO_EV_DIR_EITHER),
> > +						  timestamp);
> > +}
> > +  
> 
> I was looking at this again, and if the user enables events for channel 
> x, we continue to report events for y, z.
> Is it okay or is it better to filter them out?
Better to filter them out.  It'll be a bit of a surprise for userspace
otherwise.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> /Sean