From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Cameron Subject: Re: [spi-devel-general] [Patch 0/4] IndustrialIO subsystem (ADCs, accelerometers etc) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:45:31 +0100 Message-ID: <4888796B.9070003@cam.ac.uk> References: <488763AD.4050400@gmail.com> <20080723174801.GC11009@khazad-dum.debian.net> <48884F04.4070403@tremplin-utc.net> <48887201.8090300@cam.ac.uk> <48887783.5000002@tremplin-utc.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jonathan Cameron , mgross@linux.intel.com, Dmitry Torokhov , LKML , LM Sensors , David Brownell , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Jean Delvare , spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, Ben Nizette To: Eric Piel Return-path: In-Reply-To: <48887783.5000002@tremplin-utc.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org hat done for the next >> version (maybe driver specific for now). > Yes, on a second though, this is a low priority point. If userspace is > able to know if the hardware has or not freefall detection, it should be > possible to just implement the software detection in the userspace > daemon. People might come up with lots of "clever" algorithms for that, > so it might be better to not do too much in the kernel ;-) Good point; will leave that one for now. > >> >> At the moment the big missing element of the subsystem is an easy way of >> querying what is there. (proc interface similar to that for the input >> subsystem) > You mean /sys/class/input/, right? Indeed, something inspired by the > input subsystem should work well. No, I meant /proc/bus/input/devices which gives machine readable description of all devices registered with the input subsystem and their capabilities. Makes it easier to make userspace code reasonably generic. -- Jonathan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Cameron Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:45:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [spi-devel-general] [Patch 0/4] IndustrialIO Message-Id: <4888796B.9070003@cam.ac.uk> List-Id: References: <488763AD.4050400@gmail.com> <20080723174801.GC11009@khazad-dum.debian.net> <48884F04.4070403@tremplin-utc.net> <48887201.8090300@cam.ac.uk> <48887783.5000002@tremplin-utc.net> In-Reply-To: <48887783.5000002@tremplin-utc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Eric Piel Cc: Jonathan Cameron , mgross@linux.intel.com, Dmitry Torokhov , LKML , LM Sensors , David Brownell , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Jean Delvare , spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, Ben Nizette hat done for the next >> version (maybe driver specific for now). > Yes, on a second though, this is a low priority point. If userspace is > able to know if the hardware has or not freefall detection, it should be > possible to just implement the software detection in the userspace > daemon. People might come up with lots of "clever" algorithms for that, > so it might be better to not do too much in the kernel ;-) Good point; will leave that one for now. > >> >> At the moment the big missing element of the subsystem is an easy way of >> querying what is there. (proc interface similar to that for the input >> subsystem) > You mean /sys/class/input/, right? Indeed, something inspired by the > input subsystem should work well. No, I meant /proc/bus/input/devices which gives machine readable description of all devices registered with the input subsystem and their capabilities. Makes it easier to make userspace code reasonably generic. -- Jonathan _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors