On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 02:56:19PM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > 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. > It might help to not just send the series, but to start a thread to discuss the proposed bindings. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
