Re: [PATCH v12 3/3] ABI: pps: Add ABI documentation for Intel TIO

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 12:31:08PM +0530, subramanian.mohan@intel.com wrote:
> From: Subramanian Mohan <subramanian.mohan@intel.com>
> 
> Document sysfs interface for Intel Timed I/O PPS driver.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lakshmi Sowjanya D <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Subramanian Mohan <subramanian.mohan@intel.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-pps-tio | 8 ++++++++
>  MAINTAINERS                                      | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-pps-tio
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-pps-tio b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-pps-tio
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..8face1dc8010
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-pps-tio
> @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> +What:		/sys/devices/platform/INTCxxxx/enable
> +Date:		September 2024
> +KernelVersion:	6.12
> +Contact:	Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>

Why are you adding a random person here who did not sign off on this
commit as being responsible for it?

> +		Subramanian Mohan<subramanian.mohan@intel.com>

Do you really need 2 people for a sysfs attribute?

> +Description:
> +		(RW) Enable or disable PPS TIO generator output, read to
> +		see the status of hardware (Enabled/Disabled).
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index f328373463b0..242d9784ee5d 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -18263,6 +18263,7 @@ M:	Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com>
>  L:	linuxpps@ml.enneenne.com (subscribers-only)
>  S:	Maintained
>  W:	http://wiki.enneenne.com/index.php/LinuxPPS_support
> +F:	Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-pps-tio

Why are you saying that Rodolfo is now responsible for this file?

>  F:	Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-pps

Wait, there already is default pps sysfs attributes?  Why aren't you
adding your attribute to them instead?  Doing a "driver-specific"
attribute for a generic class device is not a good idea as userspace
tools will never know to look for it.

thanks,

greg k-h