LM83 driver

[mds@paradyne.com (Mark D. Studebaker )]

Of course with libsensors apps you don't care about /proc standards.

The benefit is in writing simple non-libsensors scripts, etc.
(see our new prog/pwm/pwmconfig) which are only feasible if we follow
consistent standards for /proc.

Jean Delvare wrote:
>>For no longer than the /proc standard is going to last (sysfs anyone)
>>I think it would be much better to have a "dummy" value.
> 
> 
> Why that? Our structures are flexible enough to support that, libsensors
> supports it, sensors supports it. In which case would the dummy value
> help? I just can't see any.
> 
> As for the procfs vs. sysfs thing, it is unrelated IMHO. If we are to
> allow 2-values temperature files for sysfs, we can as well do so for
> procfs. If anything needs to be changed to support this (I still don't
> see what yet), it will have to for at least sysfs so it maybe won't even
> notice it's the same for some recent procfs drivers.
> 
> Of course, adding a dummy value is easy and we already have at least one
> driver that does it - adm1021 for lm84 - but I don't like adding
> constraints when I feel they will only slow us down on our path to
> progress. Letting the driver choose how many temperature values it wants
> to repport is a good idea, methinks. One could imagine drivers only
> repporting the current value, or max and current (this is the case for
> my lm83 driver), or over, hyst and current as most of our drivers do.
> But there are other possibilities, such as max, min, current (I think we
> have some drivers that do that) or max, hystmax, min, hystmin and
> current resulting in a 5-value file. The same could apply to other
> measures such as in's and fan's.
> 
> The fact that we try to have a common base for all sensor drivers
> doesn't mean we must ignore chips specificity. Sadly, it looks like this
> is what we tend to do when a single drivers support many, many chips. I
> think that's something we should think about. After all, that's the idea
> Unix is living with for decades (do one thing and do it well).
> 
> Comments welcome, of course.
>