On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:37 PM Wolfram Sang <w...@the-dreams.de> wrote: > > > > > > I wondered also about DEBUG_FS entries. I can see their value when > > > > developing the driver. But since this is done now, do they really help a > > > > user to debug a difficult case? I am not sure, and then I wonder if we > > > > should have that code in upstream. I am open for discussion, though. > > > > > > The user wanted to have health monitor implemented on top of the driver. > > > The user has 16 channels connected the multiple devices. All are operated > > > using various daemons in the system. Sometimes the slave devices are > > > power down. > > > Therefor the user wanted to track the health status of the devices. > > > > Ah, then there are these options I have in mind (Wolfram, FYI as well!): > > 1) push with debugfs as a temporary solution and convert to devlink health > > protocol [1]; > > 2) drop it and develop devlink_health solution; > > 3) push debugfs and wait if I²C will gain devlink health support > > No need for 2). We can push it now and convert it later. That being > said, I wonder if [1] is suitable for this driver? Things like NACKs and > timeouts happen regularly on an I2C bus and are not a state of bad > health. >
Agree, having a timeout every now and then is not an issue. The user is interested in cases when the number of timeouts\BER\nack\recovery are high.
