Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Add HWMON support for DGFX

["Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 20:02:51 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> On 7/1/23 18:31, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:30:37 -0700, Badal Nilawar wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Hi Badal,
> >
> >> This series adds the hwmon support on xe driver for DGFX
> >
> > Needs some discussion but I have a general comment on this series
> > first. The implementation here follow what was done for i915. But how
> > "hwmon attributes are defined" I think we should look at how this was done
> > in other drm drivers, namely amdgpu and radeon. Look here (search for
> > "hwmon_attributes"):
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/amdgpu_pm.c, and
> > drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_pm.c
> >
> > Here the hwmon attribute definition is very similar to how general sysfs
> > attributes are defined (they will just appear in hwmon directories) and
> > does not carry baggage of the hwmon infrastructure (what i915 has). So my
> > preference is to shift to this amd/radeon way for xe.
> >
>
> You mean your preference is to use a deprecated hardware monitoring
> registration function and to explicitly violate the following statement
> from Documentation/hwmon/hwmon-kernel-api.rst ?
>
>   All other hardware monitoring device registration functions are deprecated
>   and must not be used in new drivers.

I missed that, but since we also have this in ddaefa209c4a ("hwmon: Make
chip parameter for with_info API mandatory"), yes that is what it would
boil down to.

> That is quite interesting. Please elaborate and explain your rationale.

Basically, like those other drm drivers, the chip parameter is of no use to
us (or at least we'd be totally fine not using it), hence the desire to
skip it.

But we are still required to use what we don't need? Do you care about
drivers outside drivers/hwmon?

Thanks.
--
Ashutosh