Re: [lm-sensors] powerX_alarm sysfs attribute

[Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com>]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:30:25AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:18:30 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:00:23AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Thanks for clarifying. I didn't read the datasheet, and what Ira wrote
> > > confused me. If the alarm is related to the value of in2_input, then of
> > > course in2_alarm, in2_min_alarm (assuming in2_min is present) or
> > > in2_max_alarm (assuming in2_max is present) makes sense.
> >
> > Is that an implied requirement for supporting min_alarm ? Reason for asking is that many chips 
> > have limit alarms but no matching (readable/settable) limit values. ltc4215, ltc4245, and ltc4261
> > are examples. Alarm status is determined by a voltage on a pin exceeding a hardcoded limit,
> > and the actual voltage on a pin is determined by external resistor arrays.
> > The ltc4245 and ltc4261 drivers already provide min_alarm and/or max_alarm but not min and max.
> 
> I had our recent discussion about the "sensors" code in mind. I seem to
> recall that the code currently ignores limit-specific alarms if there
> is no matching limit.
> 
> That being said, if some chip drivers really have to do that, then
> probably we'll have to adjust the "sensors" code, rather than the other
> way around.
> 
Makes sense. I'll look into it.

Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors