[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a1e940aa-7ede-572a-80ca-d950273e5ba6@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 07:34:25 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis@...com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
jdelvare@...e.com, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Cc: nm@...com, vigneshr@...com, u-kumar1@...com, kristo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 0/3] Add support for ESM
On 4/25/23 01:49, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
> Hi Guenter
>
> On 24/04/23 20:27, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 4/24/23 03:50, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
>>> Resending as no major changes, commit subject change only.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you consider changing the subject of the bindings from "misc"
>> to "hwmon" as not being a major change, but it made me aware that you
>> are trying to sneak bindings which in my opinion don't belong there
>> into the hwmon bindings directory. This is not a hardware monitoring
>> device, it doesn't have anything to do with hardware monitoring, and the
>> bindings do not belong into bindings/hwmon/.
>>
>
> I understand, it's a thin line across which I pushed ESM into hwmon; my reasoning was ESM also actively looks for signals that it aggregates, and is overall monitoring the device health. But if there was an option, in order of fitting: fault/ > misc/ > hwmon/
>
That is really a stretch. It doesn't monitor anything. It is a signal
routing mechanism.
With that logic every transistor would be a hardware monitoring device.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists