On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:33:55AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 02:05:57PM -0500, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > The kernel has generic support for thermal management. Making it work > > for any device is just a matter of a driver generating the appropriate > > thermal and cooling devices and associating them. ACPI already works > > this way. > > > Not sure what you suggest here. Thermal devices register as hwmon devices > if so configured, so having hwmon devices register as thermal devices > would not work, at least not without some serious thought to prevent > registration loops. That's really an implementation detail - the worst case at present is that you'd end up with the same sensor providing data twice, but that's fixable. > If you are looking for thermal device support, maybe the drivers in question > should be implemented as thermal device drivers and provide hwmon functionality > through the thermal subsystem. Did you consider that option ? We could definitely change the existing hwmon drivers to be thermal drivers instead, but not everything they do fits into that model. > Do you plan to use/utilize the thermal subsystem, or do you plan to duplicate > that functionality in the GPU driver(s) ? Guess that was one of the reasons > why Jean asked for a use case of the proposed API. Use the thermal subsystem. That's why I made the ACPI thermal code generic in the first place. > If you plan to use the thermal subsystem without having to rewrite hwmon drivers, > did you consider means to interconnect the hwmon subsystem with the thermal subsystem, > eg by creating a means for hwmon devices to register as thermal devices ? As I said, we could rework the hwmon drivers into thermal devices instead, but we'd still need a mechanism for providing the thermal device back to the registering device. > > Because hardware control is the kernel's job, not userspace's. Having > > hardware melt just because userspace fell off a cliff isn't acceptable. > > > The same argument would apply to system fan control, doesn't it ? Yes, which is why it belongs in the kernel. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
