lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] Add support to disable sensor groups in P9
From
Date


On 05/17/2018 06:08 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/16/2018 11:10 PM, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/15/2018 08:32 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:24:32PM +0530, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
>>>> This patch series adds support to enable/disable OCC based
>>>> inband-sensor groups at runtime. The environmental sensor groups are
>>>> managed in HWMON and the remaining platform specific sensor groups are
>>>> managed in /sys/firmware/opal.
>>>>
>>>> The firmware changes required for this patch is posted below:
>>>> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/skiboot/2018-March/010812.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for not getting back earlier. This is a tough one.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. I have tried to answer your questions according to my
>> understanding below:
>>
>>> Key problem is that you are changing the ABI with those new attributes.
>>> On top of that, the attributes _do_ make some sense (many chips support
>>> enabling/disabling of individual sensors), suggesting that those or
>>> similar attributes may or even should at some point be added to the ABI.
>>>
>>> At the same time, returning "0" as measurement values when sensors are
>>> disabled does not seem like a good idea, since "0" is a perfectly valid
>>> measurement, at least for most sensors.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>>
>>> Given that, we need to have a discussion about adding _enable attributes to
>>> the ABI
>>
>>> what is the scope,
>> IIUC the scope should be RW and the attribute is defined for each supported
>> sensor group
>>
>
> That is _your_ need. I am not aware of any other chip where a per-sensor group
> attribute would make sense. The discussion we need has to extend beyond the need
> of a single chip.
>
> Guenter
>


Is it okay if the ABI provides provision for both types of attribute
power_enable and powerX_enable. And is it okay to decide which type of attribute
to be used by the capability provided by the hwmon chip?


- Shilpa

>>> when should the attributes exist and when not,
>> We control this currently via device-tree
>>
>>> do we want/need power_enable or powerX_enable or both, and so on), and
>> We need power_enable right now
>>
>>> what to return if a sensor is disabled (such as -ENODATA).
>> -ENODATA sounds good.
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Shilpa
>>
>> Once we have an
>>> agreement, we can continue with an implementation.
>>>
>>> Guenter
>>>
>>>> Shilpasri G Bhat (3):
>>>> powernv:opal-sensor-groups: Add support to enable sensor groups
>>>> hwmon: ibmpowernv: Add attributes to enable/disable sensor groups
>>>> powernv: opal-sensor-groups: Add attributes to disable/enable sensors
>>>>
>>>> .../ABI/testing/sysfs-firmware-opal-sensor-groups | 34 ++++++
>>>> Documentation/hwmon/ibmpowernv | 31 ++++-
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal-api.h | 4 +-
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/opal.h | 2 +
>>>> .../powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-sensor-groups.c | 104 ++++++++++++-----
>>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-wrappers.S | 1 +
>>>> drivers/hwmon/ibmpowernv.c | 127
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++--
>>>> 7 files changed, 265 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644
>>>> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-firmware-opal-sensor-groups
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 1.8.3.1
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hwmon" in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>
>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-18 06:05    [W:0.069 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site