dbus-sensors:hwmontemp: additional attribute proposal

James Feist james.feist at linux.intel.com
Sat Aug 8 04:17:04 AEST 2020

On 8/7/2020 11:04 AM, Jason Ling wrote:
>     Yeah that's what I meant, a generic PSUSensor Type with a field called
>     'Export' or something that EM can use to get the Export type.
> Sure, I think that handles the EM side of things.
>     I'm conflicted on that.  Part of the reason that list is there, and
>     not in the config files directly, is to convey that those are the
>     types that have been tested to work correctly, and the types that the
>     config files "promise" to work sanely.  The other thing is, if you've
>     done the testing, adding to that list is (should be) relatively
>     trivial and straightforward.  Opening up that list to runtime parsing
>     opens a lot of security questions I'm not prepared to answer.
> Sure, let's scrap runtime parsing and go for something far simpler.
> (1) have a base type, devices list that represents the approved device list.
> (2) have an empty extended type, device list that represents user 
> specified extensions.
> (3) factor these out into separate files and provide a method that 
> returns the union of the base and extended types/devices.
> now we have a base type/device list that contains supported guaranteed 
> devices and another extended type/device list that is easier to maintain 
> patches for.
> I think that's a rather small change and accomplishes what I'd like 
> while preserving the intent of keeping a list of supported types/devices.
> What do you think?

What would happen if something wasn't in the approved devices list? 
Print a warning? Assert? I don't have any problems with this approach. 
It would be nice if this list could be (in the future) extended to all 
sensor types.

More information about the openbmc mailing list