Re: [lm-sensors] [RESEND PATCH V1 0/9] thermal: introduce DT thermalzone build

[Eduardo Valentin]

On 19-07-2013 14:45, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 07:38 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>> On 18-07-2013 17:11, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:53:05AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello Guenter,
>>>>
>>>> On 17-07-2013 18:09, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:17:19AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you noticed, I am working in a way to represent thermal
>>>>>> data using device tree [1]. Essentially, this should be a
>>>>>> way to say what to do with a sensor and how to associate
>>>>>> (cooling) actions with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me that goes way beyond the supposed scope of
>>>>> devicetree data. Devicetree data is supposed to describe
>>>>> hardware, not its configuration or use. This is clearly a use
>>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for rising your voice here. It is important to know what
>>>> hwmon ppl think about this.
>>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't know what ppl stands for.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Guenter
>>>>
>>>> As your answers to the series are giving same argument, I chose
>>>> to answer on patch 0. I would be happier if you could elaborate
>>>> a bit more on your concern, specially if you take hwmon cap
>>>> here, and give your view with that perspective.
>>>>
>>>> I also considered that this work could be abusing of DT
>>>> purposes. But let me explain why I still think it makes sense
>>>> to have it.
>>>>
>>> Ultimately, you are making my point here. If you considered it,
>>> did you ask devicetree experts for an opinion ? Did you discuss
>>> the subject on the devicetree-discuss mailing list ? If so, what
>>> was the result ?
>>
>> Although I have asked, I didn't get any feedback. 
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/11/760
>>
>> But now I am requesting feedback in a formal (patch) way.
>>
>> Consider this patch series as official request for (devicetree
>> experts and everyone involved) opinions.
> 
> I might suggest (a) sending the email "To" the DT maintainer, rather
> than just CC'ing him, (b) perhaps start a new thread just to present
> the proposed DT binding, and get feedback on that. A thread with a new
> subject like "[RFC] DT binding for thermal zones" might get more
> attention than a patch submission; the subject line of this patch
> doesn't stand much (since it implies to me it's more about build
> issues than DT bindings even though it does mention DT).
> 

OK. I will do that.  Sounds reasonable. Resending this series as RFC
again, but now addressed to DT folks.

> 


-- 
You have got to be excited about what you are doing. (L. Lamport)

Eduardo Valentin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature