From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:11:26 +0000 Subject: [lm-sensors] alarm files one file per sensor vs file with Message-Id: <441947DE.40800@hhs.nl> List-Id: References: <441940D4.2050107@hhs.nl> In-Reply-To: <441940D4.2050107@hhs.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On 2006-03-16, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Jean I would like to submit a version of the abituguru for merging, but >> I would like to modify it (if needed) to match your decision on this >> first. Can you take a decisision on this please? >> >> Or shall I just submit the abituguru driver as is and submit an update >> if needed later? > > No, let's decide now and have your driver follow that decision right > away, that's less work for everyone, and will let you do the user-space > part faster too. > I agree, but I didn't know if you were ready to take a decission. > We will go with individual alarm files, as I had been proposing. I will > not have the time to submit a new documentation patch before next week, > but basically it's just what my previous patch was saying. Follow the > same naming scheme for beep, alarm_mask and shutdown (the later two > being only used by your driver AFAIK.) > Ok, got a link handy to the patch you're talking about? Otherwise I'll scim the archives. > Hans, I'd like to thank you for your constructive criticism with regards > to this technical choice we had to make. You're welcome. > Now I understand that its not the best thing that could happen for your > abituguru driver, but this is really only one driver amongst four > dozens, and almost all other drivers will be better with this approach. > I understand, no problem, this will delay the uguru patch a bit though, I have to find some time todo this, probably not before next week. > sorry for being slow No problem, processes like these take time Thanks & Regards, Hans