Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:53:46 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, jdelvare@suse.com, arnd@arndb.de,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, andrew@aj.id.au,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joel@jms.id.au,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [linux, dev-4.10, 6/6] drivers/hwmon: Add a driver for a generic
 PECI hwmon
Message-ID: <20180111235346.GA13443@lunn.ch>
References: <20180109223126.13093-7-jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
 <20180110214747.GA25248@roeck-us.net>
 <261ac28e-813c-a058-c81f-ad4e718d0233@linux.intel.com>
 <20180111214035.GA14748@roeck-us.net>
 <20180111221845.GA9278@lunn.ch>
 <463412a8-ad34-264d-0f44-bd383f100b44@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <463412a8-ad34-264d-0f44-bd383f100b44@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 03:14:37PM -0800, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
> On 1/11/2018 2:18 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>>>>+static const struct of_device_id peci_of_table[] = {
> >>>>>+	{ .compatible = "peci-hwmon", },
> >>>>
> >>>>This does not look like a reference to some piece of hardware.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>This driver provides generic PECI hwmon function to which controller has
> >>>PECI HW such as Aspeed or Nuvoton BMC chip so it's not dependant on a
> >>>specific hardware. Should I remove this or any suggestion?
> >
> >PECI seems to be an Intel thing. So at least it should be
> >
> >  { .compatible = "intel,peci-hwmon", }
> >
> >assuming it is actually compatible with the Intel specification.
> >
> >	 Andrew
> >
> 
> Yes, PECI is an Intel thing but this driver is running on an ARM kernel on
> Aspeed or Nuvoton chipsets for now. This driver will be monitoring a host
> server's Intel CPU and DIMM which is running on a separated OS.

Hi Jae

You need to be careful with the name then. You should not claim the
name 'peci' in case somebody actually implements a PECI driver which
is compatible with Intel PECI.

However, looking at other comments, it seems like this part is going
away, if you turn your code into a bus driver.

      Andrew