From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:01:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/3] hwmon: (lm90) Simplify handling of Message-Id: <20110728060158.GD21792@ericsson.com> List-Id: References: <20110724203520.07a3f202@endymion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20110724203520.07a3f202@endymion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 02:35:20PM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > The optional extended local temperature register can never have > address 0, as this address is already used by another register. Thus > we can get rid of flag LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT and simply rely on > reg_local_ext being non-zero to determine if a given chip has this > extension or not. This makes the code more simple. > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare > Cc: Stijn Devriendt > Cc: Guenter Roeck > --- > Notes: > * This patch fixes a bug as a side effect: chip type max6657 lacked > the definition of reg_local_ext. I can submit a separate patch for > this, or it can be fixed in the patch which broke it (as it isn't in > Linus' tree yet) and I'll adjust this one accordingly, or this patch > can be merged in the patch which broke it altogether. All options > are fine with me. Guenter? > * Another approach would be to keep MAX6657_REG_R_LOCAL_TEMPL, but set > it automatically in lm90_probe(). Opinions? > I prefer your fix; it makes the code simpler. Regarding the max6657 problem - I'll fix that in the original patch and apply this one on top of my queue. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors