Hi Manaf,
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 9:17 AM Manaf Meethalavalappu Pallikunhi
<quic_manafm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Rafael,What exactly do you mean by "monitored" here?
On 1/9/2024 7:12 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 8:16 PM Manaf Meethalavalappu Pallikunhi
<quic_manafm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The commit 2e38a2a981b2("thermal/core: Add a generic
thermal_zone_set_trip() function") adds the support to update
trip hysteresis even if set_trip_hyst() operation is not defined.
But during hysteresis attribute creation, if this operation is
defined then only it enables hysteresis write access. It leads
to a case where hysteresis sysfs will be read only for a thermal
zone when its set_trip_hyst() operation is not defined.
Which is by design.
I think it is regression after recent re-work. If a sensor is registered with thermal framework via thermal_of,
sensor driver doesn't need to know the trip configuration and nothing to do with set_trip_hyst() in driver.
Without this change, if a sensor needs to be monitored from userspace(trip/hysteresis),
it is enforcing sensor driver to add dummy set_trip_hyst() operation. Correct me otherwiseWith the current design, whether or not trip properties can be updated
by user space is a thermal zone property expressed by the presence of
the set_trip_* operations, so yes, whoever registers the thermal zone
needs to provide those so that user space can update the trip
properties.
For some thermal zone types (eg. acpi), updating trip hysteresis viaNot really, because it would affect all of the thermal zones then.
sysfs might lead to incorrect behavior.
To address this issue, is it okay to guard hysteresis write permission under CONFIG_THERMAL_WRITABLE_TRIPS defconfig ?
TBH, the exact scenario in which user space needs to update trip
hysteresis is not particularly clear to me, so can you provide some
more details, please?
Thanks!