Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: ina3221: Add enable sysfs nodes

[Nicolin Chen]

Hello,

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:58:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:02:44AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 06:06:32AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 09/25/2018 11:42 PM, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > The inX_enable interface allows user space to enable or disable
> > > > the corresponding channel. Meanwhile, according to hwmon ABI, a
> > > > disabled channel/sensor should return -ENODATA as a read result.
> > > > 
> > > > However, there're configurable nodes sharing the same __show()
> > > > functions. So this change also adds to check if the attribute is
> > > > read-only to make sure it's not reading a configuration but the
> > > > sensor data.
> >  
> > > One necessary high level change I don't see below: With this change,
> > > we should no longer drop a channel entirely if it is disabled from
> > > devicetree. All channels should be visible but report -ENODATA if
> > > disabled. In other words, it should be possible for the 'enable' flag
> > > to override settings in DT.
> > 
> > Hmm...I don't feel so convinced here. The status in DT binding isn't
> > exactly a setting but a physical status: if a hardware design leaves
> > a channel to be disconnected, I don't really see a point in enabling
> > it in the runtime. Or maybe you can shed some light on it?
> > 
> 
> You are making an assumption from your use case. It might as well be that
> some or all channels are disabled in DT by default to conserve power,
> not because they are disconnected.

I think I probably should update my DT binding somehow to say it
explicitly that the property should be only used in cases of the
physical disconnections, although I feel the current binding "no
input source" already has the same meaning.

In my opinion, disabling channels in DT to save power isn't very
plausible, because it sounds more likely a user decision, while,
as we know, DT merely describes the hardware design.

Otherwise, if we want something like a setting for this purpose,
we should probably use a different property for DT binding, bool
type "disable-on-boot" for example.

> > Meanwhile, I believe the enable nodes are necessary in either way as
> > users could decide to disable the connected channels, based on their
> > use cases, to save power.
> > 
> Agreed, though I would not say "necessary". "Useful" seems to be more
> appropriate.

Yea..