Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] rtc: isl1208: add support for isl1219 with hwmon for tamper detection | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Date | Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:15:18 -0800 |
| |
On 01/30/2018 03:40 AM, Denis OSTERLAND wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 30.01.2018, 11:27 +0100 schrieb Alexandre Belloni: >> On 29/01/2018 at 13:59:19 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:03:33AM +0100, Michael Grzeschik wrote: >>> [ ... ] >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> + >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface b/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface >>>>>> index fc337c317c673..a12b3c2b2a18c 100644 >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface >>>>>> @@ -702,6 +702,13 @@ intrusion[0-*]_alarm >>>>>> the user. This is done by writing 0 to the file. Writing >>>>>> other values is unsupported. >>>>>> >>>>>> +intrusion[0-*]_timestamp >>>>>> + Chassis intrusion detection >>>>>> + YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS UTC (ts.sec): intrusion detected >>>>>> + RO >>>>>> + The corresponding timestamp on which the intrustion >>>>>> + was detected. >>>>>> + >>>>> Sneaky. Nack. You don't just add attributes to the ABI because you want it, >>>>> without serious discussion, and much less so hidden in an RTC driver >>>>> (and even less as unparseable attribute). >>>> Right; but it was not meant to be sneaky. I should have stick to my first >>>> thought and label this patch RFC. Sorry for that. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In addition to that, I consider the attribute unnecessary. The intrusion >>>>> already generates an event which should be sufficient for all practical >>>>> purposes. >>>> Would it make sense in between the other sysfs attributes of this driver? >>>> >>> I don't understand what you mean with that, sorry. >>> >>> From an ABI perspective, the attibute doesn't add value since it is >>> highly device specific (or at least it is the only chip I am aware of >>> which reports such a time stamp). Feel free to add the attribute to the >>> driver and document it, but not as part of the hwmon ABI. In that >>> case I would be inclined to accept it. However, keep in mind that >>> your version, reporting a human readable date/time, would effectively >>> preclude it from ever making it into the ABI. >>> >> Actually, there are many RTCs that are able to register one or more >> timestamps. My plan was to add support for that soon but I was not >> planning to do so in the hwmon ABI as this may be used for something >> that is not intrusion detection (interval timers for example). > What would you suggest? > I think about something like this: > event[0-*]_timestamp: timestamp in seconds since epoch or empty if not triggered > event[0-*]_alarm: 1 if event was triggered, else 0; write 0 to clear event
Sure, that makes sense if the events are not specifically related to intrusion detection. Question is if there would ever be more than one or if event_timestamp and event_alarm would be sufficient.
Guenter
| |