On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 09:57:44PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
>
> On 3/04/24 10:22, Chris Packham wrote:
> >
> > On 3/04/24 09:59, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 08:24:37PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
> >>> Hi Guenter, Jean,
> >>>
> >>> I've got a requirement to add some meaningful names to some hwmon
> >>> sensors (LM75 specifically) so that we can provide some indication of
> >>> where on a board the sensor is located (e.g. "Intake" vs "Exhaust" vs
> >>> "Near that really hot chip").
> >>>
> >>> I see that the sysfs ABI documents both "label" for the chip and
> >>> "temp[1-*]_label" (as well as similar fan and Vin attributes). The
> >>> latter seem to be supported by the hwmon core but I don't see anything
> >>> for the former (I'm struggling to find any driver that supports a
> >>> chip-wide label).
> >>>
> >>> Assuming I want to have a label added in the device tree to a lm75
> >>> would
> >>> something like the following be acceptable
> >>>
> >>> sensor@48 {
> >>> compatible = "national,lm75";
> >>> reg = <0x48>;
> >>> label = "Intake";
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> I'd then update the lm75 driver to grab that from the devicetree and
> >>> use
> >>> it to provide the hwmon_temp_label attribute.
> >>>
> >> Have you tried just declaring the label property as you suggested above
> >> in your system without doing anything else, and looked at the generated
> >> sysfs attributes ?
> >
> > I have not. But in my defense I'm also using an older kernel LTS that
> > doesn't have commit e1c9d6d61ddf ("hwmon: Add "label" attribute"). But
> > now that I know it exists I can carry it as a local patch until we
> > next update.
>
> Related is there an lm-sensors change that uses this attribute for
> display purposes?
>
Sorry, I don't know. I stopped paying attention to the lm-sensors package
a long time ago, and I don't know its status. I just don't have the time.
> I do have a couple of PRs open on the lm-sensors github project I'd like
> to see merged but given recent events this should absolutely not be
> construed as a criticism of anyone maintaining lm-sensors merely a query
> as to whether PRs are the right path for changes or if they should be
> sent to a mailing list somewhere.
>
I have no idea, sorry.
Guenter
