| Message ID | 20221128230219.39537-3-nick.hawkins@hpe.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ARM: Add GXP Fan and SPI controllers | expand |
On 11/28/22 15:02, nick.hawkins@hpe.com wrote: > From: Nick Hawkins <nick.hawkins@hpe.com> > > The fans are capable of reporting a fault to the CPLD controller which > then reports it to the GXP SoC via PLREGS. This patch enables hwmon to > be able to report these failures up to the HOST OS. > This change is really completely unrelated to a CPLD or specific SoC. The commit description is just confusing. It should simply state that it documents the existing fanX_fault attribute. Guenter > Signed-off-by: Nick Hawkins <nick.hawkins@hpe.com> > > --- > > v2: > *No change > --- > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-hwmon | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-hwmon b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-hwmon > index 7271781a23b2..638f4c6d4ec7 100644 > --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-hwmon > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-hwmon > @@ -276,6 +276,15 @@ Description: > > RW > > +What: /sys/class/hwmon/hwmonX/fanY_fault > +Description: > + Reports if a fan has reported failure. > + > + - 1: Failed > + - 0: Ok > + > + RO > + > What: /sys/class/hwmon/hwmonX/pwmY > Description: > Pulse width modulation fan control.
> This change is really completely unrelated to a CPLD or specific SoC. > The commit description is just confusing. It should simply state that > it documents the existing fanX_fault attribute. Understood. Just to confirm should I change fanY_fault to fanX_fault in documentation as well as the patch description? For instance: /sys/class/hwmon/hwmonX/fanX_fault It seems that the documentation around it uses fanY_ format. Thanks, -Nick Hawkins
On 11/29/22 08:15, Hawkins, Nick wrote: >> This change is really completely unrelated to a CPLD or specific SoC. >> The commit description is just confusing. It should simply state that >> it documents the existing fanX_fault attribute. > > Understood. Just to confirm should I change fanY_fault to fanX_fault > in documentation as well as the patch description? For instance: > /sys/class/hwmon/hwmonX/fanX_fault > > It seems that the documentation around it uses fanY_ format. > Now you start splitting hairs ;-). I wanted to point out that fan[X,Y,Z,A,B,C,...]_fault is a generic attribute, not that I want you to change fanY to fanX. Guenter
diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-hwmon b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-hwmon index 7271781a23b2..638f4c6d4ec7 100644 --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-hwmon +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-hwmon @@ -276,6 +276,15 @@ Description: RW +What: /sys/class/hwmon/hwmonX/fanY_fault +Description: + Reports if a fan has reported failure. + + - 1: Failed + - 0: Ok + + RO + What: /sys/class/hwmon/hwmonX/pwmY Description: Pulse width modulation fan control.