Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:41:43 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net>, Shteryana Shopova <syrinx@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org, "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Porting OpenBSD's sysctl hw.sensors framework to FreeBSD Message-ID: <20070711003958.V8913@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <53705.1184107078@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <53705.1184107078@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Physical measurements are only relevant in the context of their physical > location and the OpenBSD enumeration doesn't even encode this, it is only > interested in the logical location of the sensor, what kind of bus it is on, > what kind of address it has. > > For any hw-sensor namespace to make sense, it must, as a minimum, identify > the sensors in terms of the device(-drivers) associated with the hardware > where the sensor senses, not the device-driver of the sensor itself. > > The OpenBSD stuff is a 1980 style hack, and should not be propagated. This argument would be more convincing if accompanied by a concrete example, fabricated or otherwise. Are you suggesting, for example, adding newbus sensor methods associated with existing driver attachments? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070711003958.V8913>