From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: v4.10-rc4 to v4.10-rc5: battery regression on Nokia N900 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:20:39 -0800 Message-ID: <20170127172039.GA2498@roeck-us.net> References: <88c94ea6-abe2-0f20-337e-e9ee00c883d8@roeck-us.net> <20170124175800.GA15070@amd> <20170124184526.GA25056@roeck-us.net> <20170125111233.GB3912@amd> <20170125120918.GA7936@pali> <1485481030.2469.15.camel@intel.com> <1485488382.2469.27.camel@intel.com> <9146145b-7e21-c4de-a9cd-dad7bc74ee7a@roeck-us.net> <1485528033.2469.61.camel@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1485528033.2469.61.camel@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Zhang Rui Cc: Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= , Pavel Machek , sre@kernel.org, kernel list , linux-arm-kernel , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, tony@atomide.com, khilman@kernel.org, aaro.koskinen@iki.fi, ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com, patrikbachan@gmail.com, serge@hallyn.com, abcloriens@gmail.com, fabio.estevam@nxp.com List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:40:33PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: > > > > > > If thermal zone I/F is used, we can not change it's 'type' name to > > > be > > > compatible with new hwmon API. > > > > > You mean you can not fix the name to be compatible with libsensors. > > > > We can try to convert it to a libsensor-compatible string, either for > hwmon only, or for both thermal and hwmon. But this is an ABI change, > right? Let's go back to the basics. Fact is that the thermal subsystem registers hwmon devices with 'name' attributes which violate the documented hardware monitoring ABI. I think we can consider this undisputed. The rest is pretty much all opinion. Is a change in a driver to stop violating a documented ABI an ABI change or a bug fix ? In other words, does a driver violating a documented ABI make that ABI violation part of the ABI ? Quite interesting questions. My take is that it is a bug fix, others apparently have the strong opinion that potential users of such an ABI violation have priority, and that a violation of a documented ABI _does_ make this violation part of the ABI. I'll leave it at that. I tried to make my position clear, but it appears that I am quite alone in my opinion. With that, I'll leave it up to you to decide how to proceed. Guenter