On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 06:40:21 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 02:21:58AM -0500, Phil Pokorny wrote: > > Reading the thermal sysfs-api and code, it's seems clear that it is a > > very ACPI centric kind of thing. It's involved in the coordination of > > temperatures and the ways (fans, throttle algorithms, etc.) to keep > > them in check. It makes regular calls into the ACPI parser to > > evaluate values. > > > > But this driver that Alan has written seems to be a hwmon driver. > > It's poking at registers, setting up A2D channels and dealing with > > thermistors and perhaps voltages? Those are very hwmon like things > > for a driver to do. > > > > It appears to be very similar to the coretemp and k10temp drivers that > > read temperatures from the internals of the CPU. > > If the driver would use the hwmon framework, yes. However, it uses the thermal > framework, in which hwmon support is optional. > > The thermal framework itself is acpi independent. There is no single > acpi call in the thermal framework code. acpi use may be true for the > drivers currently registering with the thermal framework, but that > doesn't mean that the thermal framework itself in any way depends on > or is only supposed to be used with ACPI devices. ACPI is only referenced > in the documentation as example. > > If the thermal framework were to be used for acpi devices only, it would > presumably reside in drivers/acpi and not be independent. > > So your reasoning isn't really correct. Putting thermal drivers into > the hwmon directory doesn't really make sense. hwmon functionality > is an optional subset of thermal drivers, but that does not mean > that thermal drivers _are_ hwmon drivers. +1 -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
