Hi: > On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 10:26 +0800, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > The new thermal managemeny sysfs class that was just merged into > > acpi-test, especially when dealing with temperature measurement and > > fan control, has a lot of common ground with the hwmon interface. * Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> [2008-02-03 17:31:12 +0800]: > Yes, that's true. > The idea is from Len's ols paper in 2007, "Cool Hand Linux - Handheld > Thermal Extensions". The new thermal management sysfs class can be used > by handheld devices which use device throttling for thermal control and > may have no fan at all. > Please refer to > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/doc/OLS2007-cool-web/ Interesting. > > However, the ACPI model for thermal cooling devices (fans, etc) and > > thermal zones (temp sensors) as currently implemented in the sysfs > > class appears at first glance to be a lot more simplified than what > > is available through the hwmon sysfs ABI (for a lack of a better > > term to describe the sysfs attribute specifications). > > > > And the two sysfs ABIs are incompatible. The ACPI one uses > > low-precision units, (temperature in 10^0 degrees Celcius), while > > the hwmon ABI uses medium precision units (10^-3 degrees Celcius), > > for example. There is also no tachometer feedback for fans, etc. > Yes, currently ACPI is the only user of the thermal sysfs I/F. We can > add new sys I/F if someone really need it. > > IMHO, we can probably do better than two incompatible sysfs ABIs for > > what ammounts to the same functionality for many userspace > > applications (i.e. thermal monitor apps, and fan control and > > monitoring apps). And it would be really neat if the new thermal > > management stuff could just plug into the already available > > temperature sensors and fan controllers that follow the hwmon sysfs > > ABI. > Yes, we do want to use the hwmon sysfs ABI at the beginning. > But there are several gaps that making us turn to a new thermal sysfs > class. And the biggest one is that hwmon does NOT support ACPI passive > cooling devices like processor, video, etc. intel menlow platform even > has a ACPI memory controller device which can be throttled by changing > the bandwidth. These are quite different from the hwmon's fan-based > thermal management, right? The hwmon class ABI is more about exposing the functionality that is available on various devices than it is about accomplishing some specific task like "thermal management". That said... I don't see why the hwmon class ABI couldn't be extended to accomodate CPU throttling, etc. But I also don't see that it hurts anything to put these controls somewhere else in sysfs. I *do* think that any driver which reports temperature, etc. should expose those measurements through the hwmon class - even if they're exposed somewhere else as well. Regards, -- Mark M. Hoffman mhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
