All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ed Tanous <ed@tanous.net>
To: James Feist <james.feist@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrei Kartashev <a.kartashev@yadro.com>,
	openbmc <openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: dbus-sensors: Unit property for xyz.openbmc_project.Sensor.Value interface
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:24:19 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACWQX82wHxHz9VLAjeSv_s+J1Ovh985o31ekB0oPdr8A8UBavw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a824162a-3c7e-810b-5c9a-e41332a0cd22@linux.intel.com>

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 8:23 AM James Feist <james.feist@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/16/2020 6:28 AM, Andrei Kartashev wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We noticed that dbus-sensors doesn't fully implement
> > xyz.openbmc_project.Sensor.Value interface: there is no Unit property
> > for all the sensors, defined by dbus-sensors.
> > I believe it was intentionally, but I still wondering what was the
> > reason?
>
> It was originally as the information seemed redundant. If the
> information is needed I'm fine with someone adding it, it just hasn't
> seemed to be a high priority.

Considering we've gone this long with no impact (considering the path
can be used to lookup the unit) I wonder if we should consider
removing unit from the sensor Value API?  It doesn't seem used.

>
> > I noticed that in intel-ipmi-oem units are determined based on object
> > paths, but that looks ugly since there is well-defined natural
> > interface for units in dbus.
> > Lack of the "Unit" property in the interface breaks some existing
> > logic.
> >

Technically the way the interfaces define it, both are valid to use to
determine the Units, and both would need to be lookup tables.  Is
using the path any more ugly than using the property?

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-16 16:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-16 13:28 dbus-sensors: Unit property for xyz.openbmc_project.Sensor.Value interface Andrei Kartashev
2020-09-16 15:23 ` James Feist
2020-09-16 16:24   ` Ed Tanous [this message]
2020-09-16 17:08     ` Patrick Williams
2020-09-16 17:19       ` Ed Tanous
2020-09-16 17:29         ` Patrick Williams
2020-09-17  4:13           ` Ed Tanous
2020-09-16 17:49     ` Andrei Kartashev
2020-09-16 18:23     ` i.kononenko
2020-09-17  4:24       ` Ed Tanous
2020-09-17 21:42         ` i.kononenko
2020-09-16 18:36     ` Andrei Kartashev

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CACWQX82wHxHz9VLAjeSv_s+J1Ovh985o31ekB0oPdr8A8UBavw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=ed@tanous.net \
    --cc=a.kartashev@yadro.com \
    --cc=james.feist@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.