Juerg Haefliger wrote: > On 4/22/07, Juerg Haefliger <juergh at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/22/07, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote: >> > 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? >> >> Yes, I do. OK, I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. The problem >> is the thermal thresholds. How would you implement the following >> example with the current sysfs standard? >> >> temp3 maps to zone2 >> temp3 maps to zone3 >> zone2 has min and max temp thresholds >> zone3 has min and max temp thresholds >> pwm2 is controlled by zone2 >> pwm3 is controlled by hottest of zone2 or zone3 >> >> See what the problem is? There are 2 sets of thermal thresholds for >> pwm3 and 2 sets for temp3. > > OK just realized that this is a silly example :-) Let's try again: > > temp1 maps to zone1 > temp3 maps to zone2 > temp3 maps to zone3 > zone1 has min and max temp thresholds > zone2 has min and max temp thresholds > zone3 has min and max temp thresholds > pwm1 is controlled by zone1 > pwm2 is controlled by zone2 > pwm3 is controlled by hottest of zone1 or zone3 > > Not sure if that makes more sense but the DME1737 can certainly be > programmed that way... > I see your ppoint, and I don't know how to handle that with the current scheme, Regards, Hans
