On 07/18/2013 03:21 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:18:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 07/18/2013 07:53 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: >>> Hello Guenter, >>> >>> On 17-07-2013 18:09, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:17:19AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> As you noticed, I am working in a way to represent thermal >>>>> data using device tree [1]. Essentially, this should be a way >>>>> to say what to do with a sensor and how to associate (cooling) >>>>> actions with it. >>>>> >>>> Seems to me that goes way beyond the supposed scope of devicetree >>>> data. Devicetree data is supposed to describe hardware, not its >>>> configuration or use. This is clearly a use case. >>> >>> Thanks for rising your voice here. It is important to know what >>> hwmon ppl think about this. >> >> I meant to find time to read Guenter's original email where he >> initially objected to putting data into DT, and determine exactly what >> was being objected to. I still haven't:-( However, the arguments that >> Eduardo stated in his email do make sense to me; I agree that >> temperature limits really are a description of HW. Details of which >> cooling methods to invoke when certain temperature limits are reached >> is also part of the HW/system design, and hence I would tend to agree >> that they're appropriate to include in DT. Anyway, that's just my 2 >> cents on the matter:-) > > Many systems have multiple profiles for various use cases (high performance, > low power etc), and limits are different based on the use case. If that means > you are going to have multiple devicetree variants based on the profile, > I would argue that you crossed the line. Yes, I can see that argument. However, a counter-point: * I believe we do need a DT binding to describe the absolute thermal limits of a system, for safety/correctness of system operation. * We need to define a syntax/schema to represent that. * If we then want to implement additional profiles with stricter limits, do we really want to invent a different syntax/schema to represent those? Representing them in the same way seems like good use of the design, mind-share, etc. * Perhaps that doesn't mean that the additional profiles have to be in DT though; just that we somehow make any other representation of those profiles as close to the DT representation in syntax/structure as we can, to get maximum re-use. > With thermal profiles it gets even more > complicated, as those parameters may be played around with and changed > multiple times to find the best settings to achieve optimal cooling. To me, that sounds more like fixing a bug in the initial data, rather than something which fundamentally affects how the data should be represented. > Does this describe hardware ? I don't think so, but, as I mentioned before, > maybe I am wrong. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
