[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190605183945.GA2442@roeck-us.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:39:45 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>
Cc: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com>,
Cory Tusar <cory.tusar@....aero>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] power: supply: ucs1002: Add HWMON interface
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:47:25AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:26 AM Andrew F. Davis <afd@...com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/5/19 3:23 AM, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > > Expose current sensors found on UCS1002 via HWMON.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > > Cc: Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com>
> > > Cc: Cory Tusar <cory.tusar@....aero>
> > > Cc: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>
> > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > > Cc: Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
> > > ---
> > > drivers/power/supply/ucs1002_power.c | 6 ++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/ucs1002_power.c b/drivers/power/supply/ucs1002_power.c
> > > index 677f20a4d76f..a4b6b37549cf 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/power/supply/ucs1002_power.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/power/supply/ucs1002_power.c
> > > @@ -571,6 +571,12 @@ static int ucs1002_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + ret = devm_power_supply_add_hwmon_sysfs(info->charger);
> >
> > Could this be added to the core power supply framework on registering so
> > all devices get this, vs each driver having to add this line?
> >
>
> I'd say it is up to Sebastian to decide if this should be opt-out
> rather than opt-in. I have no objections to either approach.
>
Same here, and agreed.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists