Juerg Haefliger wrote: > On 4/22/07, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote: >> Juerg Haefliger wrote: >>> Hi Jean, >>> >>> On 4/22/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote: >>>> Hi Juerg, >>>> >>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:04:28 -0700, Juerg Haefliger wrote: >>>>> George, Jean, >>>>> >>>>> I'm struggling with the same issue for the DME1737 I'm currently >>>>> working on. This chip also features temp zones and "hottest of x,y,z" >>>>> PWM control. The current sysfs standard is not flexible enough to >>>>> handle these features, especially the combination of a single PWM >>>>> being controlled by multiple temp inputs and multiple PMWs being >>>>> controlled by the same temp input. I believe we need another layer of >>>>> mapping. I.e. temp->pwm is not sufficient, but rather temp->zone->pwm. >>>>> >>>>> I therefore propose the add the following sysfs attributes to our standard: >>>>> >>>>> zone[1-*]_auto_channels_temp for temp-to-zone mapping >>>>> pwm[1-*]_auto_channels_zone for zone-to-pwm mapping >>>>> zone[1-*]_auto_point[1-*]_temp for zone temp auto points. >>>> I don't see what value it adds compared to what we currently have. >>>> >>>> We have pwm[1-*]_auto_channels_temp, which is a bit vector. We have one >>>> file per PWM, one bit per temperature channel, so all in all we have a >>>> Npwm x Ntemp matrix, or N-N relation between PWM and temperatures. This >>>> already allows us to handle cases such as "the hottest of tempA and >>>> tempB control pwmC" or "tempD controls pwmE and pwmF". >>> Yes, I understand that. >>> >>> >>>> You propose to add the concept of zone. According to the above, each >>>> zone could include any temperature channel, so we have a N-N relation >>>> between zones and temperatures. Then you express another N-N relation >>>> between PWM channels and zones. As far as I can see, this results in a >>>> N-N relation between temperatures and PWM, just expressed differently. >>>> Am I missing something? What do you think it would let us express, >>>> which the current model doesn't? >>> What I can't seem to map to our current standard (or maybe I just >>> don't see it) is the concept of multiple sets of thermal thresholds >>> for a single temp input. Example: pwm2 is controlled by zone2 and pwm3 >>> is controlled by zone3 but both zone2 and zone3 are controlled by >>> temp3. Both zone2 & 3 have different thermal thresholds. >>> >>> With the current standard I can only apply one set of thresholds to >>> temp3 via temp3_auto_point[1-*]_temp. >>> >> Thats easy, AFAIK you can have either temp[1-*]_auto_point[1-*]_temp, >> or pwm[1-*]_auto_point[1-*]_temp, iow you can couple the autopoints >> to either a temp channel or a pwm channel depending on if the >> thresholds are set per temp channel or per pwm channel. > > That's not going to work. I can't use temp[1-*]_auto_point[1-*]_temp > because there are multiple sets of thresholds for a single temp input > and I can't use pwm[1-*]_auto_point[1-*]_temp either because then the > "hottest of x,y,z" doesn't work. > Can't you use pwm[1-*]_auto_channels_temp for that? Regards, Hans
