Re: The new thermal management sysfs class, and hwmon

From: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>
Cc: "Mark M. Hoffman" <mhoffman@lightlink.com>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org,
	Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>,
	"Thomas, Sujith" <sujith.thomas@intel.com>
Subject: Re: The new thermal management sysfs class, and hwmon
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:41:33 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200802070141.33362.lenb@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080203175006.GB9159@khazad-dum.debian.net>

> Agreed.  However, *duplicating* what is already in hwmon elsewhere is not
> fun.  Please reconsider.

I started off with the same position as you, Henrique,
but Rui and Sujith don't see it that way.
Of course this is software, we can always change it --
particularly since there will be a very small list
of users for the new I/F, and we happen to know them:-)

> I'd like to see passive cooling (heck, the entire 
> ACPI v3.0 thermal model, if needed) added to hwmon, that will enhance hwmon
> to be even more generic, and we all benefit from that.

The ACPI 3.0 thermal model requires quite a bit of sophistication from
the system designer and BIOS writer.
Based on the quality of system designs and BIOS code we see
in the industry, I think it is way over the head of 99% of the industry.

That said, if a system does come out that supports the ACPI 3.0 Thermal Model
and they want to ship Linux on it, we can look into it then.

cheers,
-Len