CVS patch for lm85 fixes and EMC6D100 support

Philip Pokorny ppokorny at
Sun Jun 1 07:59:25 CEST 2003

Certainly makes sense.  See if someone else is interested and motivated to 
work on it.


Mark D. Studebaker wrote:

> I'd like to solicit volunteers to create a 2.6-compatible libsensors
> right away. I don't think we can wait until 2.6.0 comes out to get started.
> Anybody up for it? Can we put a request on our web page?
> What do you guys think?
> Greg KH wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:12:08AM -0700, Philip Pokorny wrote:
>>> I'm worried about the libsensors implementation for 2.5/2.6.  The 
>>> switch to sysfs will mean a radical change to the libsensors 
>>> implementation.  This may be a good time to address a number of 
>>> issues (duplicated code in libsensors and prog/sensors, inflexible 
>>> formating, integration of sensord/rrdb, etc) if we have to do a major 
>>> re-write of the libsensors and sensors code.  Has anyone given any 
>>> thought to this?
>> I've looked at this, and agree, a radical change to the libsensors
>> implementation seems to be in order.  I haven't spent any serious time
>> yet on this, but will have the time after 2.6.0 comes out.

More information about the lm-sensors mailing list