On 03/01/2011 05:13 PM, Andrei Warkentin wrote:

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Saravana Kannan
[off-list ref]  wrote:

quoted

On 02/28/2011 02:28 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:

quoted

Hello Eduardo,

On 02/16/2011 12:57 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:

quoted

quoted

Eduardo, what has happened to this patchset?

Got forgotten :-(. Unfortunately I didn't pushed it hard enough.

I propose to refactor your patchset, moving from procfs to sysfs.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Do you want help in picking it up and try to polish it up?

Yeah, but it would need a refactoring. IIRC, result of last discussion
was that we should not mess with /proc. So, maybe moving back

quoted

quoted

to something under sysfs. Perhaps /sys/devices/soc or so?

About the location of this new sysfs entry, where do you think it should
be?
I propose to create a new directory named "soc" in /sys/devices/system/.

As platform vendors have several/different kind of IDs to export to
sysfs, I propose each vendor to create file entries related to their IDs
(eg. /sys/devices/system/soc/idcode for OMAP platforms).

I think the path /sys/devices/system/soc/ will work for the MSM too. I would
have ideally liked it to be /sys/devices/system/soc/msm,
/sys/devices/system/soc/omap, etc, but we can't get to pick names for
devices under a class. So, we can make do with /sys/devices/system/soc/.

quoted

However, I think we should have a common file entry to export the unique
ID of the platforms. Indeed, user-space applications should have a
unified way to get this kind of ID, regardless of the platform (eg.
/sys/devices/system/soc/unique_id).

I like the idea of have a common file across all implementations that will
let user space identify what implementation is exporting the other files and
how to interpret them.

I would like to propose an "arch" file to identify the arch the soc info
file are for. I'm guessing within an arch, the soc files would mostly be the
same? If there are other minor differences, we can let the arch specific
code deal with how the files are interpreted.

Does "arch" work for everyone?

Sorry to butt in, but what kind of info are you guys talking about?

Please do butt in :-), that's what a community discussion is for.

Like SOC revision, serial numbers, etc...?

Like SOC type (to identify different chipsets), revision, etc.

What would an "arch" file mean? The name of the soc platform?

The arch file would pretty much be the "xxxx" from arch/arm/mach-xxxx or 
similar paths. If that info is already available elsewhere, then that 
file is not needed. I proposed using the arch since that will remove the 
need to maintain some database of unique/reserved names/numbers for each 
implementation of socinfo (like the machinetypes list we have).

-Saravana

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.