Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] platform: arm64: lenovo-thinkpad-t14s-ec: Add hwmon support for temperatures

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@oss.qualcomm.com>]

Le 08/07/2026 à 10:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski a écrit :
> On 08/07/2026 09:31, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 7/8/26 08:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:22:27PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> +static const struct hwmon_ops t14s_ec_hwmon_ops = {
>>>> +	.is_visible = t14s_ec_hwmon_is_visible,
>>>> +	.read = t14s_ec_hwmon_read,
>>>> +	.read_string = t14s_ec_hwmon_read_string,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct hwmon_channel_info *t14s_ec_hwmon_info[] = {
>>>> +	HWMON_CHANNEL_INFO(chip, HWMON_C_REGISTER_TZ),
>>>> +	HWMON_CHANNEL_INFO(temp,
>>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,
>>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,
>>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,
>>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,
>>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,
>>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL),
>>>> +	NULL
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct hwmon_chip_info t14s_ec_chip_info = {
>>>> +	.ops = &t14s_ec_hwmon_ops,
>>>> +	.info = t14s_ec_hwmon_info,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static int t14s_ec_hwmon_probe(struct t14s_ec *ec)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct device *dev;
>>>> +	struct t14s_ec_hwmon_sys_thermx sys_thermx[] = {
>>>> +		{ .label = "soc",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM0 },
>>>> +		{ .label = "keyboard",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM1 },
>>>> +		{ .label = "base",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM2 },
>>>> +		{ .label = "charging",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM3 },
>>>> +		{ .label = "qtm",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM6 },
>>>> +		{ .label = "ssd",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM7 },
>>>> +	};
>>>> +
>>>> +	ec->ec_hwmon.sys_thermx = devm_kmemdup_array(ec->dev, sys_thermx,
>>>> +						     ARRAY_SIZE(sys_thermx),
>>>> +						     sizeof(sys_thermx[0]), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +	if (!ec->ec_hwmon.sys_thermx)
>>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> +	dev = devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info(ec->dev, "t14s_ec", ec,
>>>> +						   &t14s_ec_chip_info, NULL);
>>>
>>> Last time I commented this looks like actual ABI break. You did not respond to
>>> that, so I assume my finding was right, thus:
>>> 1. binding is not correct (although driver should be fixed, not binding)
>>> 2. the code still breaks users
>>
>> Sorry I misunderstood it was a question expecting an answer but an
>> affirmation.
>>
>> By ABI break do you mean:
> 
> Existing ABI contract is changed in an incompatible way, which has
> observable effects as below:
>>
>>    * new driver with old DT will fail ?
> 
> ^^^ this one.

When we are incrementally adding features to a platform and like here 
reverse engineering the device protocol of the EC. It is difficult to 
give a complete bindings as we are discovering things little by little. 
How to prevent handling all versions in the code when providing 
iterative completion in the bindings ?

Is it possible to have something like sysfs?
	Documentation/ABI/[testing|stable|removed|obsolete]

but for DT bindings ?