On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 12:09:14AM -0400, Paul Walmsley wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:36:43PM -0400, Paul Walmsley wrote: >> > > Hi >> > > >> > > Some comments. >> > > >> > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Keerthy wrote: >> > > >> > [ ... ] >> > > >> > > > +} >> > > > + >> > > > +/* Sysfs hook functions */ >> > > >> > > These should be conditionally compiled out if sysfs isn't compiled in. >> > > >> > The whole point of the hwmon subsystem is to expose hardware monitoring information >> > to userland using sysfs. hwmon without sysfs doesn't make sense. >> > >> > So, if anything, it might make sense to disable the entire hwmon tree if sysfs is disabled. >> > But please no conditionals in the code. >> >> Hmm. This IP block is more than just a sensor. It also can interrupt the >> CPU and/or trigger a GPIO line (to shut down the chip) if the chip >> temperature crosses some thresholds. On some OMAPs, the thresholds are >> fixed; on others, they are software-programmable. That functionality >> shouldn't require sysfs; it's almost closer to an x86 MCE. >> >> So based on your comments, it sounds like we should move that part of the >> code to a different driver, and just leave the basic software thermal >> monitoring here? >> > Good point. This definitely requires some thought. hwmon is meant to be hw monitoring, > as the name says, not thermal management. Maybe this entire driver should be a thermal driver > instead ? This driver is not taking any action on THSUT. This is not doing the thermal management. It is a driver exposing configurable temperature thresholds. > > Guenter > -- Regards and Thanks, Keerthy _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
