Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] platform: arm64: lenovo-thinkpad-t14s-ec: Add hwmon support for temperatures

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 08/07/2026 09:31, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 7/8/26 08:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:22:27PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> +static const struct hwmon_ops t14s_ec_hwmon_ops = {
>>> +	.is_visible = t14s_ec_hwmon_is_visible,
>>> +	.read = t14s_ec_hwmon_read,
>>> +	.read_string = t14s_ec_hwmon_read_string,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static const struct hwmon_channel_info *t14s_ec_hwmon_info[] = {
>>> +	HWMON_CHANNEL_INFO(chip, HWMON_C_REGISTER_TZ),
>>> +	HWMON_CHANNEL_INFO(temp,
>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,
>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,
>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,
>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,
>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL,
>>> +			   HWMON_T_INPUT | HWMON_T_LABEL),
>>> +	NULL
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static const struct hwmon_chip_info t14s_ec_chip_info = {
>>> +	.ops = &t14s_ec_hwmon_ops,
>>> +	.info = t14s_ec_hwmon_info,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int t14s_ec_hwmon_probe(struct t14s_ec *ec)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct device *dev;
>>> +	struct t14s_ec_hwmon_sys_thermx sys_thermx[] = {
>>> +		{ .label = "soc",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM0 },
>>> +		{ .label = "keyboard",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM1 },
>>> +		{ .label = "base",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM2 },
>>> +		{ .label = "charging",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM3 },
>>> +		{ .label = "qtm",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM6 },
>>> +		{ .label = "ssd",	.reg = T14S_EC_SYS_THERM7 },
>>> +	};
>>> +
>>> +	ec->ec_hwmon.sys_thermx = devm_kmemdup_array(ec->dev, sys_thermx,
>>> +						     ARRAY_SIZE(sys_thermx),
>>> +						     sizeof(sys_thermx[0]), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +	if (!ec->ec_hwmon.sys_thermx)
>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> +	dev = devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info(ec->dev, "t14s_ec", ec,
>>> +						   &t14s_ec_chip_info, NULL);
>>
>> Last time I commented this looks like actual ABI break. You did not respond to
>> that, so I assume my finding was right, thus:
>> 1. binding is not correct (although driver should be fixed, not binding)
>> 2. the code still breaks users
> 
> Sorry I misunderstood it was a question expecting an answer but an 
> affirmation.
> 
> By ABI break do you mean:

Existing ABI contract is changed in an incompatible way, which has
observable effects as below:
> 
>   * new driver with old DT will fail ?

^^^ this one.


Best regards,
Krzysztof