On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:37:59AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 13:26:13 -0800, Ira W. Snyder wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:58:58AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I am looking through libsensors and the hwmon sysfs ABI to identify and fix > > > inconsistencies. > > > > > > One problem I noticed is powerX_alarm, which is defined as "system is drawing > > > more power than the cap allows". > > > > > > powerX_cap is defined as " ... The *_cap files only appear if the cap is known > > > to be enforced by hardware". > > > > > > Now there are conditions where power limits are defined and supported, > > > but the hardware does not enforce it. Similar, there are devices reporting power > > > alarms not associated with cap enforcement. Examples are ltc4215 and PMBus devices. > > > powerX_alarm is supported by the ltc4215 driver, but there is no _cap attribute, > > > and the alarm is not associated with a maximum, thus a reported alarm doesn't > > > really reflect the ABI. > > > > In the ltc4215, the power1_alarm occurs when the output voltage of the > > chip is outside a certain range. This range is specified by external > > resistors, specific to each application. They are not required to be a > > specific value by the hardware. > > I am confused. Did you just write _output_ voltage? > output is probably an inexact statement here. The chip controls the voltage to a board using an external transistor, and it can monitor the output voltage of that transistor. > > I guess that the ltc4215 driver's use of powerX_alarm doesn't follow the > > ABI document. > > I can confirm that. For one thing, if this has to do with voltage, it's > not a power limit. For another, if it is a voltage _output_ limit, it > has nothing to do with hardware monitoring. > I disagree; please also see my other reply. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
