[lm-sensors] PATCH: libsensors and sensors prog support for

[j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl (Hans de Goede)]

Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Hans,
> 
>> Here is a new version of the Abit uGuru userspace support, I fixed 
>> everything from Jean's review.
>>
>> I did this patch against 2.10.0 not CVS, but I checked that it applies 
>> against CVS too.
> 
> Sorry by I'd have one more objection:
> 
>> +void print_abituguru(const sensors_chip_name *name)
>> +{
>> +  int i;
>> +
>> +  for (i=0;i<11;i++)
>> +    print_abituguru_in(name, SENSORS_ABITUGURU_IN(i),
>> +      SENSORS_ABITUGURU_IN_MIN(i), SENSORS_ABITUGURU_IN_MIN_ALARM(i),
>> +      SENSORS_ABITUGURU_IN_MAX(i), SENSORS_ABITUGURU_IN_MAX_ALARM(i));
>> +
>> +  for (i=1;i<=7;i++)
>> +    print_abituguru_temp(name, SENSORS_ABITUGURU_TEMP(i),
>> +      SENSORS_ABITUGURU_TEMP_ALARM(i), SENSORS_ABITUGURU_TEMP_MAX(i),
>> +      SENSORS_ABITUGURU_TEMP_CRIT(i));
>> +
>> +  for (i=1;i<=6;i++)
>> +    print_abituguru_fan(name, SENSORS_ABITUGURU_FAN(i),
>> +      SENSORS_ABITUGURU_FAN_ALARM(i), SENSORS_ABITUGURU_FAN_MIN(i));
>> +}
> 
> This looks inefficient to me. You could pass only name and i as
> parameters to the three sub-functions. What do you think?
> 

Yes, with the new macro's which take the sensor number as argument I
could do that. This would make the abituguru_print function deviate from
how things are done in all other print functions though. So the current
way is more consistent.

Eitherway let me know what you want and I'll make the necessary changes.
 Lemme guess, you want me to change things as per your first mail :)

Regards,

Hans