ppokorny at penguincomputing.com
Tue Jul 8 18:36:57 CEST 2003
For no longer than the /proc standard is going to last (sysfs anyone) I think
it would be much better to have a "dummy" value.
Mark D. Studebaker wrote:
> looks good.
> A couple of things I may have done differently -
> but that doesn't make the way you did it wrong :)
> - You could have done one /proc callback function rather than 4
> - This is our first chip without two limits per sensor. To maintain our
> /proc standard for temps we would need a 'dummy' second value between
> the high limit and the reading. But if National did it, others will too,
> so probably better to add to our /proc standard to say it could
> be two values instead of three. Interesting.
> Jean Delvare wrote:
>> If anyone could take a look at my code for the LM83, I'd appreciate it.
>> This is my first driver, as you must know. I followed the guidelines in
>> doc/developers/new_drivers, tried to follow the coding standards, but I
>> may have missed a few things.
>> I propose the following changes to new_drivers file:
>> - Change the recommended driver to use as a template. The writer should
>> use the driver that is the more similar to the chip he is writing a
>> driver for. I personally used much more the lm75 and adm1021 drivers
>> than the recommended lm78. And actually, using two different drivers as
>> templates was great.
>> - Don't ask for testing with 2.2 kernels! Maybe we should add a line
>> about sending a 2.5 version (if possible) to Greg KH instead?
More information about the lm-sensors