On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:57:43PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > Hi Eduardo, > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:57:53AM +0000, Javi Merino wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:03:49AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:29:44AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:43:43AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > The property "hysteresis" is mandatory for trip points, so if without > > > > > it the thermal zone cannot register successfully. But "hysteresis" is > > > > > ignored in the thermal subsystem and only inquired by several thermal > > > > > sensor drivers. > > > > > > > > If the Linux thermal subsystem has a problem with handling hysteresis, I > > > > would rather fix Linux code than relaxing the DT binding. Or if you > > > > still believe hysteresis is really optional, I would prefer to see a > > > > better justification than "Linux ignores it". > > > > I see it the other way round, Is hysteresis a property that, without > > it, the thermal code can't configure itself so it fails to create the > > trip point? The current code goes "There is no hysteresis for this > > property, I don't know how to set up this trip point!". I think we > > can do better than this. > > Do you agree with Javi's suggestion? If you think it's okay, I will > move on to send out a new version patch based on Javi's comments. No I don't. This discussion so far has been about Linux code. I still havent seen an argument explaining why hysteresis has to be optional. BR, > > Thanks, > Leo Yan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
