On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 12:24:33PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote: > >So we can't mention if a value is critical or not ? > > Not currently.
How hard would it be to change that ? > >[...] > >Well, in the case of the BBU it would be better to display good or bad. > >ABSENT would be misleading, becase what we really want to report > >is that the BBU is present but bad. > > I'm sure we could come up with dozens of pairs of values, GOOD/BAD, > TRUE/FALSE, PRESENT/ABSENT, CRITICAL/NORMAL, ... I would exclude CRITICAL/NORMAL from the list: there is another flag (ENVSYS_SCRITICAL) to say if a sensor is in critical condition, regardless of its value. I guess we can just let the driver set it, in addition to the boolean value. > > >>An easy alternative would simply to mark the sensor as an INTEGER, > >>and only assign it values of 0 or 1. Changes in INTEGER values can > >>be reported. > > > >But then what would envstat report ? > > It would just show the integer value 0 or 1. You can see an example > using swsensor(4): > > modload -s type=Integer swsensor > envstat -d swsensor > modunload swsensor I fear this would be more confusing to user than the current TRUE/FALSE report. > > > >I think we need a general-purpose boolean sensor. > > It seems that envstat(8) already thinks that INDICATOR is a boolean. > It reports values of TRUE and FALSE. > > > It would be fairly easy to report changes in INDICATOR sensors, it's > just a matter of what words to use in the reports! I guess TRUE/FALSE would be good enough. -- Manuel Bouyer <[email protected]> NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --
