> > > I wondered also about DEBUG_FS entries. I can see their value when > > > developing the driver. But since this is done now, do they really help a > > > user to debug a difficult case? I am not sure, and then I wonder if we > > > should have that code in upstream. I am open for discussion, though. > > > > The user wanted to have health monitor implemented on top of the driver. > > The user has 16 channels connected the multiple devices. All are operated > > using various daemons in the system. Sometimes the slave devices are power down. > > Therefor the user wanted to track the health status of the devices. > > Ah, then there are these options I have in mind (Wolfram, FYI as well!): > 1) push with debugfs as a temporary solution and convert to devlink health protocol [1]; > 2) drop it and develop devlink_health solution; > 3) push debugfs and wait if I²C will gain devlink health support No need for 2). We can push it now and convert it later. That being said, I wonder if [1] is suitable for this driver? Things like NACKs and timeouts happen regularly on an I2C bus and are not a state of bad health.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
