linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: Add yaml bindings for thermal zones

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]

Message-ID: <20200331211349.GA18149@bogus>
Date:   Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:13:49 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: Add yaml bindings for
 thermal zones

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:07:53PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 
> Hi Amit,
> 
> On 30/03/2020 12:34, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> >>> I don't know why it's not consistent with the actual code in
> >>> of-thermal.c, where there is even a comment stated: /* For now,
> >>> thermal framework supports only 1 sensor per zone */
> >>>
> >>> I think this is the place where developers should be informed
> >>> about the limitation and not even try to put more sensors into
> >>> the list.
> >>
> >> That is a good point. I'm currently "porting" the existing
> >> binding as described in thermal.txt to yaml. If you look at some
> >> of the example (c) in there, the bindings allow many sensors to a
> >> zone mapping but the thermal core doesn't implement that
> >> functionality.
> >>
> >> So should we fix the core code or change the bindings? Thoughts -
> >> Rob, Daniel, Rui?
> >
> > Rob, Daniel: Any comments? We don't have any concerns for Linux
> > backward compatibility since multiple sensors per zone isn't used
> > anywhere. But asking since bindings are supposed to be
> > OS-agnostic.
> 
> IMO, we should remove it as it is not used anywhere.
> 
> We still have to decide how we aggregate multiple sensors.

The schema only needs to pass what currently exists (assuming no 
errors), so extending it later is fine with me.

Rob