On Sun, 2011-09-18 at 13:24 -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:09:43 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Hi Durga, > > > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 01:40:41PM -0400, R, Durgadoss wrote: > > > Hi Guenter, > > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > > > For me, it looks like, we need not know whether the threshold is upper or > > > > lower. > > > > > Anyway, for every threshold, we will get two interrupts (for either > > > > direction) > > > > > So, the user space can assume either a lower threshold and look for 0 in the > > > > > Corresponding alarm interface Or a higher threshold and look for 1 in the > > > > > alarm interface. Will this not work ? > > > > > > > > > For a lower threshold, "alarm" implies "temperature is at or below threshold", > > > > In other words, "alarm" can mean that a value is above or below a given > > > > threshold - > > > > it has a semantics that depends on its context. > > > > > > > > This context is not known in the case of a generic threshold. This is why I > > > > suggested > > > > to use a more neutral term, such as "triggered", which would imply "at or above > > > > threshold" (or possibly just "threshold triggered" if the direction is not > > > > known) > > > > without attaching a semantics to it. > > > > > > > > > > Ok. I agree. We can use tempX_thresholdY_triggered. > > > > > I'd like to hear Jean's opinion first. > > I'm fine with your proposal, yes. > > > Also, if we introduce new attributes, we should probably reinstate the old "max". > > Definitely. And preferably the 2.6.39 variant rather than the 3.0 > variant, i.e. no magical -20°C offset, unless someone can explain where > it comes from. > Sounds good. Durga, do you have time to make those changes ? Thanks, GUenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
