linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] hwmon: (lm90) split set&show temp as common codes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130712144011.GC3629@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:40:11 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc:	Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>, thierry.reding@...il.com,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] hwmon: (lm90) split set&show temp as common codes

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:50:00 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:26:15PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > One thing I am a little worried about (but maybe I'm wrong) is that I
> > > seem to understand you want to register every LM90-like chip as both a
> > > hwmon device and two thermal devices. I seem to recall that every
> > > thermal device is also exposed automatically as a virtual hwmon
> > > device, is that correct? If so we will be presenting the same values
> > > twice to libsensors, which would be confusing.
> > 
> > Not sure if that is a good idea, but if I recall correctly, the thermal folks
> > plan to remove that path.
> 
> If that means that for example the ACPI thermal zone is no longer
> displayed by "sensors", then I strongly object - unless it is
> explicitly registered as a separate hwmon device from now on, of course.
>
If I recall correctly that was the idea. Of course, in practice that will mean
that devices will _not_ get exposed as hwmon devices, as implementers won't
bother doing both.

> My idea was to make the bridge optional - you decide when you register
> a thermal device if it should be exposed as hwmon or not.
> 
Yes, that would be a much better solution.

> I don't have a strong opinion on the implementation, as long as each
> input is listed by "sensors" once and only once.
> 
Agreed.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/