From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8418A606A328 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 09:01:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=jyv558J6 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Unsubscribe-Post:List-Owner; bh=Vq93N/5Fq7H6xKbEkagvllKvnuvaRbqOr62To/Bh3PQ=; b=jyv558J6+wfYq4oz2gMIBiqKBt dGl878SMIdDB4hndmPTxZ1GS/msNE3ZnYPVL/sRu4K0cTacKhiERnT0N6pVPeykBSg5LxJHyeo5v3 c8yzStf971eoahmz894X1ClbofNYjXCXvwKV9HFaIySi3/LkLxqs9CeXyIGd4BXeQM3BRA8irAJeP /pB3SRtOKrIyZWqKK3FbcKfFgn53ZDsm85U4Bj8KjYgZKsa6A84RU2/xuRPvYR5NeHWT6gm7AIqWy XXrRDGX0BUxmN+WF4LfrpIgHQaUXf8LkrZ6FZLllMRQ5Fn2StZfJ3SwN2Y22dnAwdR84H5CdNnxel 8UX3LMLw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.100.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xOWrv-00000004ogD-3rR4; Wed, 04 Nov 2026 09:01:19 +0000 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.100.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xOWrt-00000004ofQ-02nP for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2026 09:01:18 +0000 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id F2D8968BEB; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 10:01:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2026 10:01:11 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Robson Cassiano , kbusch@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey.Bogoslavsky@sandisk.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: add NVME_QUIRK_NO_SECONDARY_TEMP_THRESH for WD SN740 Message-ID: <20261104090111.GA30750@lst.de> References: <20261103075845.GB3882@lst.de> X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20261104_010117_203913_3E906E4C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 19.17 ) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-nvme" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 05:31:29AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> Mark the controller with NVME_QUIRK_NO_SECONDARY_TEMP_THRESH so only >>> the sensor inputs are exposed. >> >> Given that this is an older device I suspect we're not going to >> see firmware fixes for it. But given that we had quite a few devices >> with issues like this, I wonder why nvme-hwmon can't detect these >> obviously fake values instead and we could drop the quirk? >> > > Question is if the quirk is really needed. Personally I doubt it. > Normally the thresholds are simply not set. I see that with the NVMEs > on my system (Samsung SSD 990 PRO) as well. If I set min and max > values, they are stored and subsequently displayed correctly. > That means, no, the hwmon driver can _not_ detect if those values > are fake because it can not distinguish "not set" from "not really > supported". > > I have not seen the patch, but I strongly suspect that it fixes > a non-issue, unless it can be shown that writing the values has no > effect. So should we drop NVME_QUIRK_NO_SECONDARY_TEMP_THRESH entirely? Robson: what kind of adverse effects do you see without the quirk?