Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752138Ab0FWMnv (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:43:51 -0400 Received: from bamako.nerim.net ([62.4.17.28]:59769 "EHLO bamako.nerim.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751520Ab0FWMnt (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:43:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:43:46 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Guenter Roeck Cc: lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Adding critical/fault limits to hwmon sysfs API Message-ID: <20100623144346.10acd898@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20100620163759.GA7077@ericsson.com> References: <20100620163759.GA7077@ericsson.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.14.4; i586-suse-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1606 Lines: 36 Hi Guenter, On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:37:59 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > the current hwmon sysfs API does not specify critical or fault limits for voltage > and current readings. > > Many recent power controller/monitoring chips have support for such limits in addition > to alarm limits. Typical action, when a the critical or fault limit is reached, > may be a board reset or power shutdown, or to report the fault condition. > > Examples for chips supporting critical/fault limits are SMM665 and variants as well > as many PMBus devices, such as MAX8688, MAX16064, LTC2978, and others. > > I think it would make sense to add critical/fault limits to the hwmon sysfs API, > to be able to report those limits if supported by a chip. > > Any thoughts on this ? I agree it would be good to have standard names (and libsensors support) if these features are popular. It might be a little difficult to come up with the right attribute names though. For temperatures, we have temp[1-*]_crit, for the critical limit on the high end. We don't have a name for the critical limit on the low end, because no chip ever implemented that. The name we chose doesn't offer much possibilities for a nice name while staying consistent. Maybe "lcrit" would be acceptable for the low end critical limit, and we keep "crit" for the high end critical limit? -- Jean Delvare -- 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/