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

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 02:56:19PM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:

On 19-07-2013 14:45, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

On 07/19/2013 07:38 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:

quoted

On 18-07-2013 17:11, Guenter Roeck wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:53:05AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin
wrote:

quoted

Hello Guenter,

On 17-07-2013 18:09, Guenter Roeck wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:17:19AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin
wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

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