Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] First cut of a adt7470 driver

[Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:11:04 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> I agree that we should do some sanity checking, but not too much as to not 
> clutter the drivers. However, I think we first need to define some kind of 
> standard as to what sanity checking we will do, and what not, and how to handle 
> out of range values (clamp versus EINVAL), actually I've written and send a 
> proposal for this to the list already as our discussion got me thinking about this.

What I've been telling contributors so far is: clamp for "continuous"
values those boundaries aren't known to the user, -EINVAL for the rest.
The rationale is essentially the same I mentioned earlier in this
thread: limits can be computed by libsensors, and we do not want a
slightly out-of-bound values to be ignored or trigger errors. But for
pretty much all the rest, returning an error on invalid values seems to
be the sane thing to do.

I agree that having these rules written somewhere would probably save
some question from new driver contributors.

-- 
Jean Delvare

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors