Re: [lm-sensors] [RESEND PATCH V1 0/9] thermal: introduce DT thermal zone build

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 02:56:19PM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On 19-07-2013 14:45, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 07/19/2013 07:38 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >> On 18-07-2013 17:11, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:53:05AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Hello Guenter,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 17-07-2013 18:09, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:17:19AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hello all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As you noticed, I am working in a way to represent thermal
> >>>>>> data using device tree [1]. Essentially, this should be a
> >>>>>> way to say what to do with a sensor and how to associate
> >>>>>> (cooling) actions with it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Seems to me that goes way beyond the supposed scope of
> >>>>> devicetree data. Devicetree data is supposed to describe
> >>>>> hardware, not its configuration or use. This is clearly a use
> >>>>> case.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for rising your voice here. It is important to know what
> >>>> hwmon ppl think about this.
> >>>>
> >>> Sorry, I don't know what ppl stands for.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Guenter
> >>>>
> >>>> As your answers to the series are giving same argument, I chose
> >>>> to answer on patch 0. I would be happier if you could elaborate
> >>>> a bit more on your concern, specially if you take hwmon cap
> >>>> here, and give your view with that perspective.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also considered that this work could be abusing of DT
> >>>> purposes. But let me explain why I still think it makes sense
> >>>> to have it.
> >>>>
> >>> Ultimately, you are making my point here. If you considered it,
> >>> did you ask devicetree experts for an opinion ? Did you discuss
> >>> the subject on the devicetree-discuss mailing list ? If so, what
> >>> was the result ?
> >>
> >> Although I have asked, I didn't get any feedback. 
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/11/760
> >>
> >> But now I am requesting feedback in a formal (patch) way.
> >>
> >> Consider this patch series as official request for (devicetree
> >> experts and everyone involved) opinions.
> > 
> > I might suggest (a) sending the email "To" the DT maintainer, rather
> > than just CC'ing him, (b) perhaps start a new thread just to present
> > the proposed DT binding, and get feedback on that. A thread with a new
> > subject like "[RFC] DT binding for thermal zones" might get more
> > attention than a patch submission; the subject line of this patch
> > doesn't stand much (since it implies to me it's more about build
> > issues than DT bindings even though it does mention DT).
> > 
> 
> OK. I will do that.  Sounds reasonable. Resending this series as RFC
> again, but now addressed to DT folks.
> 
It might help to not just send the series, but to start a thread to discuss
the proposed bindings.

Guenter