> > > I wondered also about DEBUG_FS entries. I can see their value when
> > > developing the driver. But since this is done now, do they really help a
> > > user to debug a difficult case? I am not sure, and then I wonder if we
> > > should have that code in upstream. I am open for discussion, though.
> > 
> > The user wanted to have health monitor implemented on top of the driver.
> > The user has 16 channels connected the multiple devices. All are operated
> > using various daemons in the system. Sometimes the slave devices are power down.
> > Therefor the user wanted to track the health status of the devices.
> 
> Ah, then there are these options I have in mind (Wolfram, FYI as well!):
> 1) push with debugfs as a temporary solution and convert to devlink health protocol [1];
> 2) drop it and develop devlink_health solution;
> 3) push debugfs and wait if I²C will gain devlink health support

No need for 2). We can push it now and convert it later. That being
said, I wonder if [1] is suitable for this driver? Things like NACKs and
timeouts happen regularly on an I2C bus and are not a state of bad
health.