On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:24:15AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:25:29 +0800, Wei Ni wrote: > > On 07/12/2013 10:40 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > >> If that means that for example the ACPI thermal zone is no longer > > >> displayed by "sensors", then I strongly object - unless it is > > >> explicitly registered as a separate hwmon device from now on, of course. > > > > > > If I recall correctly that was the idea. Of course, in practice that will mean > > > that devices will _not_ get exposed as hwmon devices, as implementers won't > > > bother doing both. > > > > > >> My idea was to make the bridge optional - you decide when you register > > >> a thermal device if it should be exposed as hwmon or not. > > > > > > Yes, that would be a much better solution. > > > > I think we can decide it in the DT, we can add a dt property in the lm90 > > device node, such as: > > sys-interface = SYS_HWMON; > > or > > sys-interface = SYS_THERMAL; > > So we register it as the hwmon or thermal device > > This is an option, but please keep in mind that DT is not the only way > to instantiate LM90-like devices, and we should not expose duplicate > inputs by default. It is fine with me if the default is to create only a > HWMON device (as the lm90 driver was doing so far), and only > DT-instantiated devices have the choice. I don't think this information belongs in the device tree. Whether the device is exposed as hwmon or thermal device (or both) is entirely a software issue whereas DT is a means to describe the hardware. It seems to me that the earlier proposal of communicating to the bridge whether or not a device should be exposed as hwmon device is the right thing to do here. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpTe2q1xtbQy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
