sysfs names

Mark Studebaker mds4 at
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