[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0d32c71c-9d88-26fe-60a3-e13ff64a47ad@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 08:38:26 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: "Hawkins, Nick" <nick.hawkins@....com>
Cc: "jdelvare@...e.com" <jdelvare@...e.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"Verdun, Jean-Marie" <verdun@....com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] ABI: sysfs-class-hwmon: add a description for
fanY_fault
On 11/29/22 08:15, Hawkins, Nick wrote:
>> This change is really completely unrelated to a CPLD or specific SoC.
>> The commit description is just confusing. It should simply state that
>> it documents the existing fanX_fault attribute.
>
> Understood. Just to confirm should I change fanY_fault to fanX_fault
> in documentation as well as the patch description? For instance:
> /sys/class/hwmon/hwmonX/fanX_fault
>
> It seems that the documentation around it uses fanY_ format.
>
Now you start splitting hairs ;-). I wanted to point out that
fan[X,Y,Z,A,B,C,...]_fault is a generic attribute, not that I want you
to change fanY to fanX.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists