Ah, at first I thought you were talking about an memory protection unit.

@OlegHahm: I agree mpu_common might be a bit confusing. However, IMHO we should reconsider naming conventions for drivers anyway, i.e., how to name drivers that support multiple devices/sensors with only minor code diffs? See PR #5433, too. For CPUs we already have some CPU/ARCH_common subdir and on top CPU type specific subdirs. IMHO it would be better to group drivers for similar devices into a single subdir (with a reasonable name).

Anyway, this PR is WIP as it does not replace the driver for mpu9150 but adds a common driver for mpu-based devices, namely mpu6050 and mpu9150 - but it likely works for the mpu9250 as well.

What is up with the commits in this PR?

@miri64 I can rebase/update this one for the upcoming release.

However, the problem was/is with the naming: there are 3 devices MPU6050, MPU9150, and MPU9250. They all basically work with this driver - the 9x50 version are identical and 6050 has no compass. Sticking to the naming scheme within RIOT drivers the driver has to be named MPUxy50 which is kind of ugly.

Or, similar to the cpu section, we could introduce mpu_common and subdirs for each device?

However, the problem was/is with the naming: there are 3 devices MPU6050, MPU9150, and MPU9250. They all basically work with this driver - the 9x50 version are identical and 6050 has no compass. Sticking to the naming scheme within RIOT drivers the driver has to be named MPUxy50 which is kind of ugly.

Or, similar to the cpu section, we could introduce mpu_common and subdirs for each device?

Non of this explains the messed up history ;-)

@miri64 I can rebase/update this one for the upcoming release.

Since there seems to be some discussion in this PR, I can't promise that it will make it for this release, but I guess given the commit history a rebase wouldn't hurt ;-)

oh, those other commits - mhm 🤔 I may have to cleanup a bit more ...

What's the current state?

We still did not decide a rule of thumb in which way we want to organize similar device drivers, even though was a short discussion devel already

the driver would work for mpu_6050, mpu_9150, mpu_9250. With our current rule it would've to be named mpu_xy5z that's what @PeterKietzmann is refering to.

My idea was to introduce some similar concept as for cpu here, have a large mpu_common driver an only very small device specific parts.

I won't have to time to make this ready for release, remove milestone for now.

Is there activity expected or can we close this?

one of my early works in RIOT, will rework in a new PR - closing this one as memo

How can I actually use this driver? Or can I just use the mpu9x50 driver with my mpu6050 module.