On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:03:15PM -0500, Richard Retanubun wrote: > Some bits in the fault register can be useful to differentiate > between a planned reset (reboot) or an unplanned reset (pwr-loss). > The EN bit can be used for this detection when a board's planned > reboot action toggles the EN bit and cuts the regulated voltage > (but keeping the hotswap device alive), meanwhile an unplanned > reset (pwr-loss) will not have the EN bit set because even the > hotswap device got powered off. > > So, before clearing the fault register at boot, save the contents > of the fault register so that other tools can use it as a forensic > marker to differentiate events that preceeds this boot. > > One proposed method to make this information available is via > sysfs device attributes. > --- > Hi Ira & Guenter, > > Wow, thanks for the lively discussions, I never expected this corner > of the kernel to be so actively monitored :) > > Here is the proposed V2 of the patch, allowing the values to be > accessed via sysfs. > > Now, to answer/comment on your feeback so far: > > [Guenter] > * This violates sysfs abi: > Well, is this not a living document/spec? Maybe my choice of path/variable > does not map well into the existing abi, but this is not to say it cannot be > extended, no? (I must admit I am a bit unaware of all the rules/convention of the ABI) > We don't change the sysfs ABI without good reason. Sure, it is a living document, and I have extended it myself several times. But that doesn't mean we change it easily. [ ... ] > > So here is v2; I realize this have little hope of mainlining, > I know its an ugly hack on the sysfs ABI, if someone have an > idea of a better sysfs path to pick, do let me know. > and the "ugly hack", as you admit yourself, makes this a NACK, without even looking at the code. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
