Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] hwmon: Add Qualcomm PMIC BCL driver

Hi Guenter,

On 7/22/2026 11:16 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 7/22/26 10:38, Manaf Meethalavalappu Pallikunhi wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> I am curious: Why not use static initialization and use the is_visible
>>> function to determine if an attribute is visible or not ?
>>
>> ACK. There is already a comment in v1 suggesting the use of dynamic 
>> allocation based on the available attributes rather than static 
>> initialization. The intent is to avoid having to perform enable flag 
>> checks in multiple places.
>> . >
> 
> You lost me, sorry. There is only a single is_visible function,
> and its intent is exactly to handle situations where some sensors
> are not always available.
> 
> What would be those "multiple places" ?

Understood, thanks for the clarification. I'll revert to static 
attribute initialization in the next revision and use is_visible() to 
control attribute visibility where needed.

> 
>>>  From the earlier exchange I had the impression that there is a large
>>> number of current and voltage channels, but it looks like there is only
>>> one each. That doesn't really warrant or need all this dynamic code
>>
>> Yes, this hardware only supports one or two channels (voltage and 
>> current). What we discussed earlier was that each channel can have up 
>> to three threshold alarms (warning, critical, and emergency). However, 
>> the hwmon framework currently supports only two limit alarms for these 
>> sensor types. I have not added support for the third alarm threshold 
>> in this series to keep the initial driver support aligned with the 
>> existing hwmon capabilities. Once the basic driver support is 
>> accepted, I can queue a follow-up series to add support for the third 
>> limit alarm.
>>
> 
> What does that have to do with attribute visibility ?

I was only clarifying that the channel count has always been small 
(maximum of two channels) and has not changed since v1. The earlier 
discussion was primarily around the limit alarm attributes. That said, 
you're right that this is unrelated to attribute visibility.

Thanks,
Manaf

> 
> Guenter
>