[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181010213113.GA21236@roeck-us.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:31:13 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
Cc: jdelvare@...e.com, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hwmon: (core) Add hwmon_mode structure and mode
sysfs node
Hi Nicolin,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 02:13:57PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 06:08:30AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > +available_modes The available operating modes of the chip.
> > > + This should be short, lowercase string, not containing
> > > + whitespace, or the wildcard character '*'.
> > > + This attribute shows all the available of the operating modes,
> > > + for example, "power-down" "one-shot" and "continuous".
> > > + RO
> > > +
> > > +mode The current operating mode of the chip.
> > > + This should be short, lowercase string, not containing
> > > + whitespace, or the wildcard character '*'.
> > > + This attribute shows the current operating mode of the chip.
> > > + Writing a valid string from the list of available_modes will
> > > + configure the chip to the corresponding operating mode.
> > > + RW
> > > +
>
> > This is not a well defined ABI: The modes would be under full and arbitrary
> > control by drivers, and be completely driver dependent. It isn't just the sysfs
> > attribute that makes the ABI, it is also the contents.
>
> > Also, being able to set the mode itself (for whatever definition of mode)
> > is of questionable value. This is not only for the modes suggested here, but
> > for other possible modes such as comparator mode vs. interrupt mode (which,
> > if configurable, should be via platform data or devicetree node entries).
> > For the modes suggested here, more in the other patch.
>
> I could foresee an objection here but still wrote the change after
> seeing quite a few drivers (especially TI's chips) share the same
> pattern for operating modes: power-down, one-shot and continuous.
> For example, I could add it to ina3221 driver instead of touching
> the core code, but later I would do the same for the ina2xx driver
> (just received a board having ina230/226.)
>
Most hardware monitoring chips have the functionality. That doesn't
mean that it makes sense to use/expose it.
> Although I don't mind doing this and will put it to ina3221 driver
> in v2, yet maybe we could think about a better way to abstract it?
>
My comments to patch 2/2 still apply. Powerdown duplicates existing and
standardized functionality, one-shot mode is not as simple as just enabling
the mode, and I find it quite unlikely to one-shot mode would actually
save any energy.
Thanks,
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists