From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:13:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/2] lm87: Convert into a new-style driver Message-Id: <20080605161341.0a30b160@hyperion.delvare> List-Id: References: <20080604184401.GG11300@solarflare.com> In-Reply-To: <20080604184401.GG11300@solarflare.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:04:16 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:14:01 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > The point is to allow platform_data to provide all the settings and to > > > allow polling of the values, without exposing any of the implementation > > > variables. > > > > The question is: why do you want to provide the "settings" (I think you > > mean the high and low limits of each sensor?) and allow polling of the > > values inside the kernel, when we have a standard user-space interface > > and library that takes care of this, with a dozen applications that can > > be used on top of it? It makes sense to pass _some_ settings as > > platform data (e.g. fan polarity) but passing all the limits doesn't > > make any sense to me. > > We know what the limits should be for our boards and those should be set as > the defaults. AFAIK there's no user-space infrastructure for initialising > these things at hotplug time, so we must specify them in the kernel. What bad will happen if the limits are only initialized a few seconds or minutes after the driver is loaded? -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors