linux-kernel - Re: [lm-sensors] [RESEND PATCH V1 0/9] thermal: introduce DT thermal zone build

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:45:21 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>
CC:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, wni@...dia.com,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org, l.stach@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [RESEND PATCH V1 0/9] thermal: introduce DT thermal
 zone build

On 07/19/2013 07:38 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On 18-07-2013 17:11, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:53:05AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin
>> wrote:
>>> Hello Guenter,
>>> 
>>> On 17-07-2013 18:09, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:17:19AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> As you noticed, I am working in a way to represent thermal
>>>>> data using device tree [1]. Essentially, this should be a
>>>>> way to say what to do with a sensor and how to associate
>>>>> (cooling) actions with it.
>>>>> 
>>>> Seems to me that goes way beyond the supposed scope of
>>>> devicetree data. Devicetree data is supposed to describe
>>>> hardware, not its configuration or use. This is clearly a use
>>>> case.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for rising your voice here. It is important to know what
>>> hwmon ppl think about this.
>>> 
>> Sorry, I don't know what ppl stands for.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Guenter
>>> 
>>> As your answers to the series are giving same argument, I chose
>>> to answer on patch 0. I would be happier if you could elaborate
>>> a bit more on your concern, specially if you take hwmon cap
>>> here, and give your view with that perspective.
>>> 
>>> I also considered that this work could be abusing of DT
>>> purposes. But let me explain why I still think it makes sense
>>> to have it.
>>> 
>> Ultimately, you are making my point here. If you considered it,
>> did you ask devicetree experts for an opinion ? Did you discuss
>> the subject on the devicetree-discuss mailing list ? If so, what
>> was the result ?
> 
> Although I have asked, I didn't get any feedback. 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/11/760
> 
> But now I am requesting feedback in a formal (patch) way.
> 
> Consider this patch series as official request for (devicetree
> experts and everyone involved) opinions.

I might suggest (a) sending the email "To" the DT maintainer, rather
than just CC'ing him, (b) perhaps start a new thread just to present
the proposed DT binding, and get feedback on that. A thread with a new
subject like "[RFC] DT binding for thermal zones" might get more
attention than a patch submission; the subject line of this patch
doesn't stand much (since it implies to me it's more about build
issues than DT bindings even though it does mention DT).
--
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/