Re: [PATCH v12 3/3] ABI: pps: Add ABI documentation for Intel TIO
From: Greg KH
Date: Sat Aug 24 2024 - 01:18:23 EST
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 12:31:08PM +0530, subramanian.mohan@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Subramanian Mohan <subramanian.mohan@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Document sysfs interface for Intel Timed I/O PPS driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lakshmi Sowjanya D <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@xxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Subramanian Mohan <subramanian.mohan@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> L: linuxpps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (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