From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Martin Kepplinger Subject: extending /sys/.../iio:deviceX/in_accelX_power_mode To: Jonathan Cameron , daniel.baluta@intel.com, lars@metafoo.de, mranostay@gmail.com, hamohammed.sa@gmail.com, darshanapadmadas@gmail.com, mfuzzey@parkeon.com, octavian.purdila@intel.com, irina.tirdea@intel.com, cristina.opriceana@gmail.com, vladimir.barinov@cogentembedded.com Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" Message-ID: <56D559F4.3040606@posteo.de> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:59:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-ID: 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