Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757479Ab3GLOkM (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:40:12 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f49.google.com ([209.85.160.49]:52156 "EHLO mail-pb0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757203Ab3GLOkK (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:40:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:40:11 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Jean Delvare Cc: Wei Ni , thierry.reding@gmail.com, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] hwmon: (lm90) split set&show temp as common codes Message-ID: <20130712144011.GC3629@roeck-us.net> References: <1373615287-18502-1-git-send-email-wni@nvidia.com> <1373615287-18502-2-git-send-email-wni@nvidia.com> <20130712152615.23464a6b@endymion.delvare> <20130712135000.GA3386@roeck-us.net> <20130712163034.1fc1cd66@endymion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130712163034.1fc1cd66@endymion.delvare> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1698 Lines: 39 On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:50:00 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:26:15PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > One thing I am a little worried about (but maybe I'm wrong) is that I > > > seem to understand you want to register every LM90-like chip as both a > > > hwmon device and two thermal devices. I seem to recall that every > > > thermal device is also exposed automatically as a virtual hwmon > > > device, is that correct? If so we will be presenting the same values > > > twice to libsensors, which would be confusing. > > > > Not sure if that is a good idea, but if I recall correctly, the thermal folks > > plan to remove that path. > > If that means that for example the ACPI thermal zone is no longer > displayed by "sensors", then I strongly object - unless it is > explicitly registered as a separate hwmon device from now on, of course. > If I recall correctly that was the idea. Of course, in practice that will mean that devices will _not_ get exposed as hwmon devices, as implementers won't bother doing both. > My idea was to make the bridge optional - you decide when you register > a thermal device if it should be exposed as hwmon or not. > Yes, that would be a much better solution. > I don't have a strong opinion on the implementation, as long as each > input is listed by "sensors" once and only once. > Agreed. Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/