From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:29:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH v2 8/8] hwmon: (it87) Manage device specific features with table Message-Id: <20121022002903.GA6521@roeck-us.net> List-Id: References: <1350841995-5748-9-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <1350841995-5748-9-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 04:30:38PM -0700, Phil Pokorny wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > + > > +#define FEAT_12MV_ADC (1 << 0) > > +#define FEAT_NEWER_AUTOPWM (1 << 1) > > +#define FEAT_OLD_AUTOPWM (1 << 2) > > > > Newer or older than what? Would it make more sense to number these? Gen1, > Gen2 or V1, V2 so that if yet another AUTOPWM mode/feature is added we > don't end up with "even_newer_autopwm"? > I simply replaced existing functions with a bit map. Choosing a different definition for a bit doesn't make sense w/o changing the matching function name as well. That would require a separate patch, and I am not sure if it would make sense. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors