From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: The new thermal management sysfs class, and hwmon Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:41:33 -0500 Message-ID: <200802070141.33362.lenb@kernel.org> References: <20080203022622.GA995@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20080203164410.GL20687@jupiter.solarsys.private> <20080203175006.GB9159@khazad-dum.debian.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:46251 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752575AbYBGGmj (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:42:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080203175006.GB9159@khazad-dum.debian.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Cc: "Mark M. Hoffman" , Zhang Rui , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, Jean Delvare , "Thomas, Sujith" > 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