sysfs names

Mark Studebaker mds4 at verizon.net
Sun Feb 15 05:05:57 CET 2004



Jean Delvare wrote:

> 
> The procfs files were not meant to be chip-independant at all. There
> were simple rules about file names and items orders within the files,
> but that was only meant as a help for developers. So there were no
> benefit to split alarms over correctly named files. Now this is
> completely different.
> 

For what it's worth, I think the /proc interface strived to
be chip-independent. The new sysfs interface is certainly more chip-independent,
but it's an evolution. We defined standards for /proc.
We improved  them for sysfs. 


> 
> 1* Change the base scheme (temp_min1 -> temp1_min). This is the more
> important change.
> 

If you have the energy to do this, fine, but at this point it doesn't seem
worth the effort. I don't see how having them grouped alphabetically, for example,
is much of a benefit to anybody.

> 2* Change the hysteresis names (temp1_hyst -> temp1_max_hyst). Only some
> drivers are impacted. Changes required to the library as well.
> 

Any drivers besides lm83 have more than one hyst per sensor?
This is needed for the general case but in practice the usefulness is limited.
A good idea but low priority.

> 3* Add the splitted alarm files. This doesn't break the interface, but
> on the other hand needs that we think about it a bit more so that out
> choices are extendable and correct for all known drivers.

An excellent idea that really expands the information available in a chip-independent manner.





More information about the lm-sensors mailing list