Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Apr 2022 06:53:14 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] misc: Add power-efuse driver |
| |
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 03:09:53PM -0700, Zev Weiss wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 12:23:44AM PST, Zev Weiss wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:07:57PM PST, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > +EFUSE_ERROR_ATTR(under_voltage, REGULATOR_ERROR_UNDER_VOLTAGE); > > > > +EFUSE_ERROR_ATTR(over_current, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT); > > > > +EFUSE_ERROR_ATTR(regulation_out, REGULATOR_ERROR_REGULATION_OUT); > > > > +EFUSE_ERROR_ATTR(fail, REGULATOR_ERROR_FAIL); > > > > +EFUSE_ERROR_ATTR(over_temp, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_TEMP); > > > > +EFUSE_ERROR_ATTR(under_voltage_warn, REGULATOR_ERROR_UNDER_VOLTAGE_WARN); > > > > +EFUSE_ERROR_ATTR(over_current_warn, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT_WARN); > > > > +EFUSE_ERROR_ATTR(over_voltage_warn, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_VOLTAGE_WARN); > > > > +EFUSE_ERROR_ATTR(over_temp_warn, REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_TEMP_WARN); > > > > + > > > > +static struct attribute *efuse_attrs[] = { > > > > + &dev_attr_operstate.attr, > > > > + &dev_attr_under_voltage.attr, > > > > + &dev_attr_over_current.attr, > > > > + &dev_attr_regulation_out.attr, > > > > + &dev_attr_fail.attr, > > > > + &dev_attr_over_temp.attr, > > > > + &dev_attr_under_voltage_warn.attr, > > > > + &dev_attr_over_current_warn.attr, > > > > + &dev_attr_over_voltage_warn.attr, > > > > + &dev_attr_over_temp_warn.attr, > > > > + NULL, > > > > +}; > > > > +ATTRIBUTE_GROUPS(efuse); > > > > > > Shouldn't these all just be what all regulator drivers report? Or power > > > drivers? I find it odd that this would be the first driver that would > > > need to export these types of attributes. Surely there's already a > > > class for this? > > > > > > > The attributes available from the underlying regulator device don't > > include the error flags, and while they do include its state > > ('operstate' here), it's a read-only attribute, and from previous > > discussions with Mark I gathered that was unlikely to change (whereas it > > being read-write is a critical part of this driver's functionality). > > > > Given his input on the first stab at this I took a while back, I've been > > hoping to hear from Mark as to whether this looked more like something > > he'd find palatable; perhaps he could chime in on this too? (And/or on > > the regulator API question in the cover letter.) > > > > Ping...Mark (or Liam?), any thoughts on an appropriate path forward on this?
Make it a regular regulator driver please.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |