Bug #1807: sensors with kernel 2.4, but not with kernel 2.6

Greg KH greg at kroah.com
Tue Nov 9 00:12:09 CET 2004


On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 10:28:39PM -0500, Mark M. Hoffman wrote:
> Hi again...
> 
> * Mark M. Hoffman <mhoffman at lightlink.com> [2004-11-07 21:47:51 -0500]:
> > Whatever we agree are legitimate reasons to cancel detection, I would like
> > to add specific documentation for them.  I think a case can be made that
> > there's *no* legitimate reason for a driver to halt detection that way...
> > but I'm sure I'll hear otherwise.  As an interface, this interpretation
> > of a return value (I failed so badly that you're not allowed to call me
> > again) isn't my favorite.
> 
> After working on a patch for a bit... now I hate it.  Why does i2c_detect()
> need to work that way?  
> 
> Back to where I started: anyone mind if I rewrite i2c_detect()?  A grep
> said that drivers/i2c/chips/*.c are the only callers.

Heh, I tried to rewrite it a while ago, and just gave up, it's a mess.
Please redo it.

Oh, I'm getting rid of all of the "range" variables in the structures
right now, so that will affect i2c_detect.  I'll have patches in a few
hours.

thanks,

greg k-h



More information about the lm-sensors mailing list