Re: [lm-sensors] Adding critical/fault limits to hwmon sysfs API

[Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>]

Hi Guenter,

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:03:25 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:29:11AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > I expected a counter-proposal of this kind. The problem I see is that
> > the new limit we are adding is unrelated to _min. However, the other
> > _min_* file we have (_min_alarm) expresses something which is relative
> > to _min. Same as _max_hyst and _crit_hyst, which are relative to _max
> > and _critn respectively. So I have the feeling that _min_crit sends the
> > wrong signal to the reader. Especially if we keep _crit for the high
> > bound, the asymmetry raises questions.
> > 
> > This is my rationale for suggesting _crit and _lcrit. Now, I won't
> > argue forever if others disagree, these is really only a naming
> > convention and everything will be fine as long as the drivers and
> > libsensors agree.
> 
> Makes sense. No strong opinion on my side, really. Using crit/lcrit is fine for me as well.
> Maybe we should wait if there is input from others and go with lcrit if there is none.

OK, fine with me.

> On a side note, libsensors does not support inX_fault today, even though 
> it is mentioned in the API, and there is no currX_fault. Likewise, libsensors supports 
> currX_alarm but it is not mentioned in hwmon/sysfs-interface.
> Unless there are objections, I'll clean that up when I add support for the _[l]crit objects.

Yes, please!

> Also, lib/sensors.conf.5 has a comment "Likewise, tempX_crit often comes with tempX_max_crit".
> Since tempX_max_crit does not exist, it might make sense to remove that comment.

Does the sentence make sense if you replace tempX_max_crit with
tempX_crit_hyst? Looks like a copy-paste-edit mistake (that would be
from me.)

-- 
Jean Delvare