Re: [PATCH/RFC v2 4/4] hwmon: sysfs API updates

[Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck-IzeFyvvaP7pWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Jean,

I noticed I did not copy the list with my reply, so here are are again,
with a couple of additional comments.

On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 03:18:57AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 21:10:18 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck-IzeFyvvaP7pWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface |   37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> As usual, I don't have the time to review the code, but I'd like to at
> least comment on the sysfs interface changes:
> 
I appreciate any feedback I can get.

> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface b/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface
> > index d4e2917..2dcec0f 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface
> > +++ b/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface
> > @@ -421,11 +421,12 @@ power[1-*]_accuracy		Accuracy of the power meter.
> >  				Unit: Percent
> >  				RO
> >  
> > -power[1-*]_alarm		1 if the system is drawing more power than the
> > -				cap allows; 0 otherwise.  A poll notification is
> > -				sent to this file when the power use exceeds the
> > -				cap.  This file only appears if the cap is known
> > -				to be enforced by hardware.
> > +power[1-*]_alarm		1 if the system is drawing more power than cap
> > +				or max allows; 0 otherwise.  A poll notification
> > +				is sent to this file when the power use exceeds
> > +				the cap or max limit. If only cap is supported,
> > +				this file only appears if the cap is known to be
> > +				enforced by hardware.
> >  				RO
> >  
> >  power[1-*]_cap			If power use rises above this limit, the
> > @@ -450,6 +451,18 @@ power[1-*]_cap_min		Minimum cap that can be set.
> >  				Unit: microWatt
> >  				RO
> >  
> > +power[1-*]_max			Maximum power.
> > +				Unit: microWatt
> > +				RW
> > +
> > +power[1-*]_crit			Critical maximum power.
> > +				If power rises to or above this limit, the
> > +				system will take drastic action to reduce power
> > +				consumption, such as a system shutdown. At the
> > +				very least, a power fault will be generated.
> > +				Unit: microWatt
> > +				RO
> 
> Why RO and not RW as every other limit file?
> 
Cut-and-paste error. I'll fix it.

> > +
> >  **********
> >  * Energy *
> >  **********
> > @@ -471,8 +484,14 @@ limit-related alarms, not both. The driver should just reflect the hardware
> >  implementation.
> >  
> >  in[0-*]_alarm
> > +in[0-*]_crit_alarm
> > +curr[1-*]_alarm
> > +curr[1-*]_crit_alarm
> > +power[1-*]_alarm
> > +power[1-*]_crit_alarm
> >  fan[1-*]_alarm
> >  temp[1-*]_alarm
> > +temp[1-*]_crit_alarm
> >  		Channel alarm
> >  		0: no alarm
> >  		1: alarm
> 
> The limit-specific alarms (*_crit_alarm) go in the second section,
> below. And as a matter of fact, you've already added some of them
> there...
> 
Ok, makes sense.

> > @@ -482,10 +501,17 @@ OR
> >  
> >  in[0-*]_min_alarm
> >  in[0-*]_max_alarm
> > +in[0-*]_lcrit_alarm
> > +in[0-*]_crit_alarm
> > +curr[1-*]_lcrit_alarm
> > +curr[1-*]_crit_alarm
> 
> No _min and _max alarm for curr?
> 
Oversight. pmbus devices don't support currX_min and currX_min_alarm, only
currX_lcrit and currX_lcrit_alarm. The ltc4245 driver already supports
currX_max_alarm, though, so I'll add both for consistency.

The ltc4245 driver only supports currX_max_alarm, not currX_min_alarm, though.
Wonder if that should be changed to currX_alarm, to more closely follow the API.
Let me know and I'll submit a patch if needed.

> > +power[1-*]_min_alarm
> > +power[1-*]_max_alarm
> >  fan[1-*]_min_alarm
> >  fan[1-*]_max_alarm
> >  temp[1-*]_min_alarm
> >  temp[1-*]_max_alarm
> > +temp[1-*]_lcrit_alarm
> >  temp[1-*]_crit_alarm
> >  		Limit alarm
> >  		0: no alarm
> > @@ -497,7 +523,6 @@ to notify open diodes, unconnected fans etc. where the hardware
> >  supports it. When this boolean has value 1, the measurement for that
> >  channel should not be trusted.
> >  
> > -in[0-*]_fault
> 
> I've removed it already in a separate patch, so your patch won't apply
> if you try to remove it again.
> 
Ok, good point. I'll take it out.

> >  fan[1-*]_fault
> >  temp[1-*]_fault
> >  		Input fault condition
> 
> In general, I'm happy with the proposed changes.
> 
Thanks a lot for your time!

Guenter