Hi Greg, > On May 13, 2015, at 15:08 , Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:56:49PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> >>> On May 13, 2015, at 14:52 , Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:59:44AM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: >>>> Document the beaglebone's capemgr sysfs API >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> .../testing/sysfs-devices-platform-bone_capemgr | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-platform-bone_capemgr >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-platform-bone_capemgr b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-platform-bone_capemgr >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 0000000..e2df613 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-platform-bone_capemgr >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ >>>> +What: /sys/devices/platform/bone_capemgr/slots >>>> +Date: May 2015 >>>> +KernelVersion: 4.0 >>> >>> I don't think that version is correct :) >>> >> >> Bah, ++ >> >>>> +Contact: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> +Description: >>>> + READ: >>>> + Describe the state of all the slots of the beaglebone capemgr. >>>> + Each line of the output describes a slot: >>> >>> sysfs files are "one value per file", so a sysfs file that displays >>> multiple lines like this is not allowed at all, sorry. >>> >>> Please either make it a debugfs file (if this is only for debugging, or >>> split it out into individual files, one per slot (hint, one per slot is >>> probably best.) >>> >> >> Well, it’s a status file. And it’s been used as is for a couple of years >> so it was worth a shot for backward compatibility. > > There is not "backwards compatiblity" for when you do things wrong in > the first place, you can't claim that here, sorry. > > And don't "try" to introduce things you know is wrong, that just makes > maintainers _very_ suspicious of everything else you are doing here… > OK >>>> + The slot format is as following: >>>> + <slot-id>: [P-][F-][O-][l-][L-][D-] \ >>>> + <overlay-id> <board-name>,<version>, >>>> + <manufacturer>,<part-number> >>>> + >>>> + Where the flags are: >>>> + P: Slot has been probed >>>> + F: Slot has failed probing (i.e. no EEPROM detected) >>>> + O: Slot has been overridden by the user >>>> + l: Slot is current loading >>>> + L: Slot has completed loading and is ready >>>> + D: Slot has been disabled >>>> + >>>> + Example: >>>> + 0: P---L- -1 BeagleBone RS232 CAPE,00A1,Beagleboardtoys,BB-BONE-SERL-03 >>>> + 1: PF---- -1 >>>> + 2: PF---- -1 >>>> + 3: PF---- -1 >>>> + >>>> + WRITE: >>>> + Writing a string of the form <part-number>[:version] issues a request to >>>> + load a firmware blob containing an overlay. The name of the firmware blob >>>> + is <part-number>-[version|00A0].dtbo. This act is defined as a slot override. >>>> + >>>> + Writing a negative slot id removes the slot if it was an overridden one, or >>>> + unloads a slot that was probed. >>>> + >>>> +What: /sys/devices/platform/bone_capemgr/baseboard/<eeprom-field> >>>> +Date: May 2015 >>>> +KernelVersion: 4.0 >>>> +Contact: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> +Description: Contains the probed base board EEPROM field; one of: >>>> + board-name - board-name as stored in cape EEPROM >>>> + dc-supplied - whether the cape draws or supplies DC >>>> + eeprom-format-revision - EEPROM format rev, only 00A0 supported >>>> + header - header; should be 'aa 55 33 ee' >>> >>> If it's always this value, why have the file? >>> >> >> These are the contents of the EEPROM. If the format of the EEPROM changes then the >> header information will change. > > Then don't say "should be", because what happens in the future if it is > not. > OK >>>> + manufacturer - manufacturer string >>>> + part-number - part-number of the cape >>>> + serial-number - serial number of the cape >>>> + version - version of the cape, i.e. 00A0 >>>> + number-of-pins - displayed but ignored >>>> + pin-usage - displayed but ignored >>>> + sys-5v - displayed but ignored >>>> + vdd-3v3exp - displayed but ignored >>>> + vdd-5v - displayed but ignored >>> >>> Are these all individual different files? >>> >> >> Yes > > Then write out the individual files please as different entries. > > Also, the "displayed but ignored" doesn't make sense, please fix that > up. > OK > greg k-h Regards — Pantelis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
