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]

Date:	Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:14:09 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>, Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>,
	rui.zhang@...el.com, lm-sensors@...sensors.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.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 Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 06:26:20AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:24:15AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:25:29 +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
> > > On 07/12/2013 10:40 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > >> 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 think we can decide it in the DT, we can add a dt property in the lm90
> > > device node, such as:
> > > sys-interface = SYS_HWMON;
> > > or
> > > sys-interface = SYS_THERMAL;
> > > So we register it as the hwmon or thermal device
> > 
> > This is an option, but please keep in mind that DT is not the only way
> > to instantiate LM90-like devices, and we should not expose duplicate
> > inputs by default. It is fine with me if the default is to create only a
> > HWMON device (as the lm90 driver was doing so far), and only
> > DT-instantiated devices have the choice.
> 
> I don't think this information belongs in the device tree. Whether the
> device is exposed as hwmon or thermal device (or both) is entirely a
> software issue whereas DT is a means to describe the hardware.
> 
Correct; this is exactly the type of information which does _not_ belong int
devicetree.

> It seems to me that the earlier proposal of communicating to the bridge
> whether or not a device should be exposed as hwmon device is the right
> thing to do here.
> 
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/