From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_pkg_temp_thermal: Do not expose as a hwmon device Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 09:44:32 -0800 Message-ID: <53136E00.2030000@roeck-us.net> References: <20140302153335.0f1326b6@endymion.delvare> <53135650.3070909@roeck-us.net> <20140302180452.73fa2f8a@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:58795 "EHLO mail.active-venture.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752463AbaCBRof (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:44:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140302180452.73fa2f8a@endymion.delvare> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Zhang Rui , Eduardo Valentin On 03/02/2014 09:04 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 08:03:28 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 03/02/2014 06:33 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: >>> The temperature value reported by x86_pkg_temp_thermal is already >>> reported by the coretemp driver. So, do not expose this thermal zone >>> as a hwmon device, because it would be redundant. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare >>> Cc: Zhang Rui >>> Cc: Eduardo Valentin >> >> Acked-by: Guenter Roeck >> >> Does that make the "Fix thermal zone type" patch unnecessary ? > > I think both patches are needed, as type "pkg-temp-0" is wrong anyway, > regardless of the hwmon side of things. But it is less important with > this patch applied, indeed. > >> If so, this patch would be a candidate for stable. > > I'm still not 100% certain we want either patch in stable. After all, > they aren't fixing any critical bug, and they change user interfaces so > they could impact some users in unpredictable ways. > Ok. Guenter