On 19-07-2013 14:45, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 07/19/2013 07:38 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: >> On 18-07-2013 17:11, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:53:05AM -0400, 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. >>>> >>> Sorry, I don't know what ppl stands for. >>> >>>>> >>>>> Guenter >>>> >>>> As your answers to the series are giving same argument, I chose >>>> to answer on patch 0. I would be happier if you could elaborate >>>> a bit more on your concern, specially if you take hwmon cap >>>> here, and give your view with that perspective. >>>> >>>> I also considered that this work could be abusing of DT >>>> purposes. But let me explain why I still think it makes sense >>>> to have it. >>>> >>> Ultimately, you are making my point here. If you considered it, >>> did you ask devicetree experts for an opinion ? Did you discuss >>> the subject on the devicetree-discuss mailing list ? If so, what >>> was the result ? >> >> Although I have asked, I didn't get any feedback. >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/11/760 >> >> But now I am requesting feedback in a formal (patch) way. >> >> Consider this patch series as official request for (devicetree >> experts and everyone involved) opinions. > > I might suggest (a) sending the email "To" the DT maintainer, rather > than just CC'ing him, (b) perhaps start a new thread just to present > the proposed DT binding, and get feedback on that. A thread with a new > subject like "[RFC] DT binding for thermal zones" might get more > attention than a patch submission; the subject line of this patch > doesn't stand much (since it implies to me it's more about build > issues than DT bindings even though it does mention DT). > OK. I will do that. Sounds reasonable. Resending this series as RFC again, but now addressed to DT folks. > -- You have got to be excited about what you are doing. (L. Lamport) Eduardo Valentin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
