Re: [PATCH 03/03] i2c-i801: Fix minor style issues

[Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:50:55 +0200, Ivo Manca wrote:
> > Oh, one last note before I forget: as the interrupt-based logic is new
> > and might not be as robust as the old poll-based one, 
> Likely
> > it might make
> > sense to give the user a way to disable the interrupt-based logic and
> > fall back to polling in case the new code doesn't work correctly.
> > Without that possibility, I won't feel too confident to push your
> > patches to Linus. Remember that the ICH chips are very popular and we
> > just can't afford breaking these systems.
> >   
> True, i'd rather have that option as well.
> > This could be implemented as a build time option enabling the new
> > interrupt-based code, tagged EXPERIMENTAL and disabled by default, or a
> > module parameter, or both.
> >   
> What option do you think will generate more use and thus more testing? A 
> build time option (which is disabled by default thus won't be used by 
> the generic user) or a module parameter which people might not know the 
> existance of, but is easy to enable? Not sure what the best option is :).

I think I would have a module parameter those default value is
determined by a configuration option. The default mode would be polling
first, then after some time we can change the default to interrupt
mode. And after some more time we remove the option. And maybe after
some more time (several years) we even remove the module parameter.

This seems like a reasonable upgrade path, which will let the users
help us with the testing on a voluntary basis while still not putting
the other users at risk.

-- 
Jean Delvare

_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c