Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:33:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Ambrisko <ambrisko@ambrisko.com> To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> Cc: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@freebsd.org>, Shteryana Shopova <syrinx@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Porting OpenBSD's sysctl hw.sensors framework to FreeBSD (was: Re: PERFORCE change 123040 for review) Message-ID: <200707101833.l6AIX0xl049962@ambrisko.com> In-Reply-To: <20070708081511.GX1221@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John-Mark Gurney writes: | Constantine A. Murenin wrote this message on Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 21:43 -0400: | > Hardware sensors tree is going to be pretty deep down. Under sysctl(8) | > the variable names will look like this: | > | > hw.sensors.lm0.temp0 | > | > whereas in reality, the tree has five levels: | > | > hw.sensors.lm0.temp.0 | | I'm curious, why do we want/need these in the kernel as opposed to a | userland library/utility to provide this info? I agree. There are so many different flavours of HW monitoring chips and several tools that can read them live in ports. Lots of them are slightly different, intefaces can be i2c or direct I/O. We are already somewhat battling with the various ways IPMI controllers can be attached to the system. Now in the case of IPMI there is a good win in providing a device driver interface for the HW and user land tools to get info. out of them. I don't see a win with this in the various HW monitoring chips. Doug A.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200707101833.l6AIX0xl049962>