From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Peres Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] hwmon API update Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:09:54 +0100 Message-ID: <4D6F9322.3080209@free.fr> References: <4D57CC24.1040306@free.fr> <20110213171640.GB13323@ericsson.com> <20110213230833.0ee2ff16@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nouveau-bounces+gcfxn-nouveau=m.gmane.org-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org Errors-To: nouveau-bounces+gcfxn-nouveau=m.gmane.org-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org To: Dave Airlie Cc: Jean Delvare , nouveau , Guenter Roeck , lm-sensors-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org List-Id: nouveau.vger.kernel.org Dave, The answers are inlined. Le 03/03/2011 10:36, Dave Airlie a =E9crit : > Martin, > > you probably should have cc'ed Matthew since it was his patch you based t= his on, > and I think he can provide a good explaination. I knew he was monitoring the nouveau ML. He provided a good explanation but forgot to CC the nouveau ML. Could someone in the lm-sensors mailing list forward the most important = thread? > to clarify some points, > > radeon does probably want something exactly like this, we just haven't go= tten to > it completely yet, I'd rather not have two drivers in the kernel for > exact same hardware, > and I believe sharing the hwmon code to do what we want is a good plan si= nce you > don't go around reinventing wheels, but if hwmon/i2c maintainers have > no interest > it leaves with little choice but to implement about 5-10 i2c drivers > again in drm codebase. > > Maybe hwmon/i2c maintainers could suggest a cleaner way to implement > what we want, > which I think I can summarize as > > a) access to monitored values in-kernel > b) no userspace access to the same values except via sanitised via the dr= iver. a) is mandatory, b) would be great! > though I'm not following this as closely as I should so I may have > missed something. I don't think you missed anything but long argue on the lm-sensors ML. > Dave. The reason why I didn't answer on this matter earlier was that I was in = the process of moving from one city to another. I only got the internet access on = both my computers yesterday evening and I was planing to restart the process this week end. It's good to see you we are not the only one needing this. Martin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Peres Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:09:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [Nouveau] hwmon API update Message-Id: <4D6F9322.3080209@free.fr> List-Id: References: <4D57CC24.1040306@free.fr> <20110213171640.GB13323@ericsson.com> <20110213230833.0ee2ff16@endymion.delvare> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Dave Airlie Cc: Jean Delvare , nouveau , Guenter Roeck , lm-sensors-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org Dave, The answers are inlined. Le 03/03/2011 10:36, Dave Airlie a =E9crit : > Martin, > > you probably should have cc'ed Matthew since it was his patch you based t= his on, > and I think he can provide a good explaination. I knew he was monitoring the nouveau ML. He provided a good explanation but forgot to CC the nouveau ML. Could someone in the lm-sensors mailing list forward the most important=20 thread? > to clarify some points, > > radeon does probably want something exactly like this, we just haven't go= tten to > it completely yet, I'd rather not have two drivers in the kernel for > exact same hardware, > and I believe sharing the hwmon code to do what we want is a good plan si= nce you > don't go around reinventing wheels, but if hwmon/i2c maintainers have > no interest > it leaves with little choice but to implement about 5-10 i2c drivers > again in drm codebase. > > Maybe hwmon/i2c maintainers could suggest a cleaner way to implement > what we want, > which I think I can summarize as > > a) access to monitored values in-kernel > b) no userspace access to the same values except via sanitised via the dr= iver. a) is mandatory, b) would be great! > though I'm not following this as closely as I should so I may have > missed something. I don't think you missed anything but long argue on the lm-sensors ML. > Dave. The reason why I didn't answer on this matter earlier was that I was in=20 the process of moving from one city to another. I only got the internet access on=20 both my computers yesterday evening and I was planing to restart the process this week end. It's good to see you we are not the only one needing this. Martin _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors