[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MN2PR04MB6991848EBC8DED439FCD7C49FC1D0@MN2PR04MB6991.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:08:56 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>,
Avi Shchislowski <Avi.Shchislowski@....com>
CC: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/5] scsi: ufs: ufs device as a temperature sensor
>
> Hi Avi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:48 PM Avi Shchislowski
> <Avi.Shchislowski@....com> wrote:
> >
> > As it become evident that the hwmon is not a viable option to implement
> ufs thermal notification, I would appreciate some concrete comments of this
> series.
>
> That isn't my reading of this thread.
>
> You have two options:
> 1. extend drivetemp if that makes sense for this particular application.
> 2. follow the model of other devices that happen to have a built-in
> temperature sensor and expose the hwmon compatible attributes as a
> subdevice
>
> It appears that option 1 isn't viable, so what about option 2?
This will require to export the ufs device management commands,
Which is privet to the ufs driver.
This is not a viable option as well, because it will allow unrestricted access
(Including format etc.) to the storage device.
Sorry for not making it clearer before.
Thanks,
Avri
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Julian Calaby
>
> Email: julian.calaby@...il.com
> Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists