linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] hwmon: (ina2xx) Add support for ina260

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 17:28:25 +0200
From:   Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        Franz Forstmayr <forstmayr.franz@...il.com>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] hwmon: (ina2xx) Add support for ina260

On 19. 05. 20 16:14, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 5/18/20 10:21 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 26. 02. 20 3:16, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 2/24/20 3:26 PM, Franz Forstmayr wrote:
>>>> Add initial support for INA260 power monitor with integrated shunt.
>>>> Registers are different from other INA2xx devices, that's why a small
>>>> translation table is used.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Franz Forstmayr <forstmayr.franz@...il.com>
>>>
>>> I think the chip is sufficiently different to other chips that a separate
>>> driver would make much more sense than adding support to the existing
>>> driver.
>>> There is no calibration, registers are different, the retry logic is
>>> not needed. A new driver could use the with_info API and would be much
>>> simpler while at the same time not messing up the existing driver.
>>
>> Isn't it also better to switch to IIO framework?
>> As we discussed in past there are two ina226 drivers. One in hwmon and
>> second based on IIO framework (more advance one?) and would be good to
>> deprecate hwmon one.
> 
> "More advanced" is relative. The ina2xx driver in iio doesn't support
> alert limits (which is queued in the hwmon driver for 5.8), and the
> iio->hwmon bridge doesn't support it either. On top of that, there are
> existing users of the hwmon driver, which would have to be converted
> first. As for ina260, it would be up to the implementer to determine
> if alert limit support is needed or not, and which API would be
> appropriate for the intended use case.

Good to know. If ina260 is done as separate driver I am fine with it.

Thanks,
Michal