From: Wei Ni <wni@nvidia.com>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: "linux@roeck-us.net" <linux@roeck-us.net>,
"thierry.reding@gmail.com" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
"lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" <lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] hwmon: (lm90) use enums for the indexes of temp8 and temp11
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:15:12 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51F64EC0.800@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130727173830.14cb5b21@endymion.delvare>
On 07/27/2013 11:38 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Wei,
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:48:07 +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
>> Using enums for the indexes and nrs of temp8 and temp11.
>> This make the code much more readable.
>
> I can't say I'm thrilled by this patch. The improved readability is
> questionable. In the original code, each line already had one constant
> which made it clear what the code was doing. So the gain is marginal,
> I'd say, and this costs almost 50 lines of code.
>
> Let me review it nevertheless:
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/hwmon/lm90.c | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 114 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> index 1cc3d19..8cb5dd0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
>> @@ -310,6 +310,59 @@ static const struct lm90_params lm90_params[] = {
>> };
>>
>> /*
>> + * TEMP8 register index
>> + */
>> +enum lm90_temp8_reg_index {
>> + TEMP8_LOCAL_LOW = 0, /* 0: local low limit */
>> + TEMP8_LOCAL_HIGH, /* 1: local high limit */
>> + TEMP8_LOCAL_CRIT, /* 2: local critical limit */
>> + TEMP8_REMOTE_CRIT, /* 3: remote critical limit */
>> + TEMP8_LOCAL_EMERG, /* 4: local emergency limit
>> + * (max6659 and max6695/96)
>> + */
>> + TEMP8_REMOTE_EMERG, /* 5: remote emergency limit
>> + * (max6659 and max6695/96)
>> + */
>> + TEMP8_REMOTE2_CRIT, /* 6: remote 2 critical limit
>> + * (max6695/96 only)
>> + */
>> + TEMP8_REMOTE2_EMERG, /* 7: remote 2 emergency limit
>> + * (max6695/96 only)
>> + */
>> + TEMP8_REG_NUM
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * TEMP11 register index
>> + */
>> +enum lm90_temp11_reg_index {
>> + TEMP11_REMOTE_TEMP = 0, /* 0: remote input */
>> + TEMP11_REMOTE_LOW, /* 1: remote low limit */
>> + TEMP11_REMOTE_HIGH, /* 2: remote high limit */
>> + TEMP11_REMOTE_OFFSET, /* 3: remote offset
>> + * (except max6646, max6657/58/59,
>> + * and max6695/96)
>> + */
>> + TEMP11_LOCAL_TEMP, /* 4: local input */
>> + TEMP11_REMOTE2_TEMP, /* 5: remote 2 input (max6695/96 only) */
>> + TEMP11_REMOTE2_LOW, /* 6: remote 2 low limit (max6695/96 only) */
>> + TEMP11_REMOTE2_HIGH, /* 7: remote 2 high limit (max6695/96 only) */
>> + TEMP11_REG_NUM
>> +};
>
> The "TEMP8_" and "TEMP11_" prefixes aren't really needed, as there is no
> overlapping between both sets. Removing these prefixes (except for the
> terminators, where they are needed and make sense) would make the rest
> of the code more readable IMHO, as it would avoid redundant information
> on most lines, and avoid line splitting in some cases.
Yes, make sense, I will change it.
>
> Also, the comments are mostly useless now, they were there to document
> what each number was referring to, but now this is exactly what the new
> constants are doing.
Yes, we can remove these comments, but I think it's better to remain
those exception and only things.
>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * TEMP11 register NR
>> + */
>> +enum lm90_temp11_reg_nr {
>> + NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_LOW = 0, /* 0: channel 0, remote low limit */
>> + NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_HIGH, /* 1: channel 0, remote high limit */
>> + NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_OFFSET, /* 2: channel 0, remote offset */
>> + NR_CHAN_1_REMOTE_LOW, /* 3: channel 1, remote low limit */
>> + NR_CHAN_1_REMOTE_HIGH, /* 4: channel 1, remote high limit */
>
> The conventions used in the descriptions diverge from the ones used
> above. "channel 0 remote" here is just "remove" above, and "channel 1
> remote" is "remote 2" above. This is quite confusing.
>
>> + NR_NUM /* number of the NRs for temp11 */
>
> The fact that you were unable to come up with a proper name for this
> number is a clear indication that this enum should not exist in the
> first place.
>
> These numbers are used only once, to pass specific information to
> set_temp11. This was easy enough when these were just numbers and I
> really had no reason not to do that.
Ok, so how about to remove these changes, and keep the original codes to
use numbers.
>
> If you now want to use clean constants, this should be done with logic
> and consistency. Your proposal makes sense for the data->temp8 and
> data->temp11 array indexing, because they are used more than once. But
> introducing a new set of constants with weird names just for one use
> case doesn't help readability, it makes things worse actually.
>
> So if you insist of making the code more readable by the means of named
> constants, then you should simply adjust the reg array in write_temp11
> so that it can be indexed with your TEMP11_* constants above (as is
> data->temp11.) This will leave some holes in the array but I don't
> think we care about a few lost bytes here.
>
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*
>> * Client data (each client gets its own)
>> */
>>
>> @@ -331,25 +384,8 @@ struct lm90_data {
>> u8 reg_local_ext; /* local extension register offset */
>>
>> /* registers values */
>> - s8 temp8[8]; /* 0: local low limit
>> - * 1: local high limit
>> - * 2: local critical limit
>> - * 3: remote critical limit
>> - * 4: local emergency limit (max6659 and max6695/96)
>> - * 5: remote emergency limit (max6659 and max6695/96)
>> - * 6: remote 2 critical limit (max6695/96 only)
>> - * 7: remote 2 emergency limit (max6695/96 only)
>> - */
>> - s16 temp11[8]; /* 0: remote input
>> - * 1: remote low limit
>> - * 2: remote high limit
>> - * 3: remote offset (except max6646, max6657/58/59,
>> - * and max6695/96)
>> - * 4: local input
>> - * 5: remote 2 input (max6695/96 only)
>> - * 6: remote 2 low limit (max6695/96 only)
>> - * 7: remote 2 high limit (max6695/96 only)
>> - */
>> + s8 temp8[TEMP8_REG_NUM];
>> + s16 temp11[TEMP11_REG_NUM];
>> u8 temp_hyst;
>> u16 alarms; /* bitvector (upper 8 bits for max6695/96) */
>> };
>> @@ -491,37 +527,42 @@ static struct lm90_data *lm90_update_device(struct device *dev)
>> u8 alarms;
>>
>> dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Updating lm90 data.\n");
>> - lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_LOCAL_LOW, &data->temp8[0]);
>> - lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_LOCAL_HIGH, &data->temp8[1]);
>> - lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_LOCAL_CRIT, &data->temp8[2]);
>> - lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_CRIT, &data->temp8[3]);
>> + lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_LOCAL_LOW,
>> + &data->temp8[TEMP8_LOCAL_LOW]);
>> + lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_LOCAL_HIGH,
>> + &data->temp8[TEMP8_LOCAL_HIGH]);
>> + lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_LOCAL_CRIT,
>> + &data->temp8[TEMP8_LOCAL_CRIT]);
>> + lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_CRIT,
>> + &data->temp8[TEMP8_REMOTE_CRIT]);
>> lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_TCRIT_HYST, &data->temp_hyst);
>>
>> if (data->reg_local_ext) {
>> lm90_read16(client, LM90_REG_R_LOCAL_TEMP,
>> data->reg_local_ext,
>> - &data->temp11[4]);
>> + &data->temp11[TEMP11_LOCAL_TEMP]);
>> } else {
>> if (lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_LOCAL_TEMP,
>> &h) == 0)
>> - data->temp11[4] = h << 8;
>> + data->temp11[TEMP11_LOCAL_TEMP] = h << 8;
>> }
>> lm90_read16(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_TEMPH,
>> - LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_TEMPL, &data->temp11[0]);
>> + LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_TEMPL,
>> + &data->temp11[TEMP11_REMOTE_TEMP]);
>
> Please don't break alignment.
Yes, I will do it.
>
>>
>> if (lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_LOWH, &h) == 0) {
>> - data->temp11[1] = h << 8;
>> + data->temp11[TEMP11_REMOTE_LOW] = h << 8;
>> if ((data->flags & LM90_HAVE_REM_LIMIT_EXT)
>> && lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_LOWL,
>> &l) == 0)
>> - data->temp11[1] |= l;
>> + data->temp11[TEMP11_REMOTE_LOW] |= l;
>> }
>> if (lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_HIGHH, &h) == 0) {
>> - data->temp11[2] = h << 8;
>> + data->temp11[TEMP11_REMOTE_HIGH] = h << 8;
>> if ((data->flags & LM90_HAVE_REM_LIMIT_EXT)
>> && lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_HIGHL,
>> &l) == 0)
>> - data->temp11[2] |= l;
>> + data->temp11[TEMP11_REMOTE_HIGH] |= l;
>> }
>>
>> if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_OFFSET) {
>> @@ -529,13 +570,14 @@ static struct lm90_data *lm90_update_device(struct device *dev)
>> &h) == 0
>> && lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_OFFSL,
>> &l) == 0)
>> - data->temp11[3] = (h << 8) | l;
>> + data->temp11[TEMP11_REMOTE_OFFSET] =
>> + (h << 8) | l;
>> }
>> if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_EMERGENCY) {
>> lm90_read_reg(client, MAX6659_REG_R_LOCAL_EMERG,
>> - &data->temp8[4]);
>> + &data->temp8[TEMP8_LOCAL_EMERG]);
>> lm90_read_reg(client, MAX6659_REG_R_REMOTE_EMERG,
>> - &data->temp8[5]);
>> + &data->temp8[TEMP8_REMOTE_EMERG]);
>> }
>> lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_STATUS, &alarms);
>> data->alarms = alarms; /* save as 16 bit value */
>> @@ -543,15 +585,16 @@ static struct lm90_data *lm90_update_device(struct device *dev)
>> if (data->kind == max6696) {
>> lm90_select_remote_channel(client, data, 1);
>> lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_CRIT,
>> - &data->temp8[6]);
>> + &data->temp8[TEMP8_REMOTE2_CRIT]);
>> lm90_read_reg(client, MAX6659_REG_R_REMOTE_EMERG,
>> - &data->temp8[7]);
>> + &data->temp8[TEMP8_REMOTE2_EMERG]);
>> lm90_read16(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_TEMPH,
>> - LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_TEMPL, &data->temp11[5]);
>> + LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_TEMPL,
>> + &data->temp11[TEMP11_REMOTE2_TEMP]);
>
> Please don't break alignment.
>
>> if (!lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_LOWH, &h))
>> - data->temp11[6] = h << 8;
>> + data->temp11[TEMP11_REMOTE2_LOW] = h << 8;
>> if (!lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_HIGHH, &h))
>> - data->temp11[7] = h << 8;
>> + data->temp11[TEMP11_REMOTE2_HIGH] = h << 8;
>> lm90_select_remote_channel(client, data, 0);
>>
>> if (!lm90_read_reg(client, MAX6696_REG_R_STATUS2,
>> @@ -745,7 +788,7 @@ static ssize_t show_temp8(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
>>
>> static void write_temp8(struct device *dev, int index, long val)
>> {
>> - static const u8 reg[8] = {
>> + static const u8 reg[TEMP8_REG_NUM] = {
>> LM90_REG_W_LOCAL_LOW,
>> LM90_REG_W_LOCAL_HIGH,
>> LM90_REG_W_LOCAL_CRIT,
>> @@ -828,7 +871,7 @@ static void write_temp11(struct device *dev, int nr, int index, long val)
>> u8 high;
>> u8 low;
>> int channel;
>> - } reg[5] = {
>> + } reg[NR_NUM] = {
>> { LM90_REG_W_REMOTE_LOWH, LM90_REG_W_REMOTE_LOWL, 0 },
>> { LM90_REG_W_REMOTE_HIGHH, LM90_REG_W_REMOTE_HIGHL, 0 },
>> { LM90_REG_W_REMOTE_OFFSH, LM90_REG_W_REMOTE_OFFSL, 0 },
>> @@ -919,11 +962,12 @@ static ssize_t set_temphyst(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *dummy,
>>
>> mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>> if (data->kind == adt7461)
>> - temp = temp_from_u8_adt7461(data, data->temp8[2]);
>> + temp = temp_from_u8_adt7461(data,
>> + data->temp8[TEMP8_LOCAL_CRIT]);
>
> Please align on opening parenthesis.
>
>> else if (data->kind == max6646)
>> - temp = temp_from_u8(data->temp8[2]);
>> + temp = temp_from_u8(data->temp8[TEMP8_LOCAL_CRIT]);
>> else
>> - temp = temp_from_s8(data->temp8[2]);
>> + temp = temp_from_s8(data->temp8[TEMP8_LOCAL_CRIT]);
>>
>> data->temp_hyst = hyst_to_reg(temp - val);
>> i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, LM90_REG_W_TCRIT_HYST,
>> @@ -977,25 +1021,28 @@ static ssize_t set_update_interval(struct device *dev,
>> return count;
>> }
>>
>> -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp1_input, S_IRUGO, show_temp11, NULL, 0, 4);
>> -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp2_input, S_IRUGO, show_temp11, NULL, 0, 0);
>> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp1_input, S_IRUGO, show_temp11, NULL,
>> + NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_LOW, TEMP11_LOCAL_TEMP);
>> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp2_input, S_IRUGO, show_temp11, NULL,
>> + NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_LOW, TEMP11_REMOTE_TEMP);
>
> NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_LOW makes no sense for read-only attributes, as the
> number is only used in write_temp11(). The original "0" was only
> because we can't leave the parameter empty.
>
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_min, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp8,
>> - set_temp8, 0);
>> + set_temp8, TEMP8_LOCAL_LOW);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp2_min, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp11,
>> - set_temp11, 0, 1);
>> + set_temp11, NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_LOW, TEMP11_REMOTE_LOW);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_max, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp8,
>> - set_temp8, 1);
>> + set_temp8, TEMP8_LOCAL_HIGH);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp2_max, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp11,
>> - set_temp11, 1, 2);
>> + set_temp11, NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_HIGH, TEMP11_REMOTE_HIGH);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_crit, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp8,
>> - set_temp8, 2);
>> + set_temp8, TEMP8_LOCAL_CRIT);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp2_crit, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp8,
>> - set_temp8, 3);
>> + set_temp8, TEMP8_REMOTE_CRIT);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_crit_hyst, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temphyst,
>> - set_temphyst, 2);
>> -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp2_crit_hyst, S_IRUGO, show_temphyst, NULL, 3);
>> + set_temphyst, TEMP8_LOCAL_CRIT);
>> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp2_crit_hyst, S_IRUGO, show_temphyst, NULL,
>> + TEMP8_REMOTE_CRIT);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp2_offset, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp11,
>> - set_temp11, 2, 3);
>> + set_temp11, NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_OFFSET, TEMP11_REMOTE_OFFSET);
>>
>> /* Individual alarm files */
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_crit_alarm, S_IRUGO, show_alarm, NULL, 0);
>> @@ -1043,13 +1090,13 @@ static const struct attribute_group lm90_group = {
>> * Additional attributes for devices with emergency sensors
>> */
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_emergency, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp8,
>> - set_temp8, 4);
>> + set_temp8, TEMP8_LOCAL_EMERG);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp2_emergency, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp8,
>> - set_temp8, 5);
>> + set_temp8, TEMP8_REMOTE_EMERG);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp1_emergency_hyst, S_IRUGO, show_temphyst,
>> - NULL, 4);
>> + NULL, TEMP8_LOCAL_EMERG);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp2_emergency_hyst, S_IRUGO, show_temphyst,
>> - NULL, 5);
>> + NULL, TEMP8_REMOTE_EMERG);
>>
>> static struct attribute *lm90_emergency_attributes[] = {
>> &sensor_dev_attr_temp1_emergency.dev_attr.attr,
>> @@ -1079,18 +1126,20 @@ static const struct attribute_group lm90_emergency_alarm_group = {
>> /*
>> * Additional attributes for devices with 3 temperature sensors
>> */
>> -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp3_input, S_IRUGO, show_temp11, NULL, 0, 5);
>> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp3_input, S_IRUGO, show_temp11, NULL,
>> + NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_LOW, TEMP11_REMOTE2_TEMP);
>
> Here again this NR_CHAN_0_REMOTE_LOW makes no sense for a read-only
> attribute, it was really "0" for "we don't care".
>
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp3_min, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp11,
>> - set_temp11, 3, 6);
>> + set_temp11, NR_CHAN_1_REMOTE_LOW, TEMP11_REMOTE2_LOW);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_2(temp3_max, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp11,
>> - set_temp11, 4, 7);
>> + set_temp11, NR_CHAN_1_REMOTE_HIGH, TEMP11_REMOTE2_HIGH);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp3_crit, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp8,
>> - set_temp8, 6);
>> -static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp3_crit_hyst, S_IRUGO, show_temphyst, NULL, 6);
>> + set_temp8, TEMP8_REMOTE2_CRIT);
>> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp3_crit_hyst, S_IRUGO, show_temphyst, NULL,
>> + TEMP8_REMOTE2_CRIT);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp3_emergency, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, show_temp8,
>> - set_temp8, 7);
>> + set_temp8, TEMP8_REMOTE2_EMERG);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp3_emergency_hyst, S_IRUGO, show_temphyst,
>> - NULL, 7);
>> + NULL, TEMP8_REMOTE2_EMERG);
>>
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp3_crit_alarm, S_IRUGO, show_alarm, NULL, 9);
>> static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(temp3_fault, S_IRUGO, show_alarm, NULL, 10);
>
> Will all these changes done, I may consider apply the modified patch,
> but no guarantee, as I'm still not sure I like it. I'll make my mind
> when I see the result.
I really appreciate you reviewed my patches so carefully.
I will update changes in my next version.
Thanks.
Wei.
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-29 11:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-12 7:48 [PATCH v3 0/4] Lm90 Enhancements Wei Ni
2013-07-12 7:48 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] hwmon: (lm90) split set&show temp as common codes Wei Ni
2013-07-12 13:26 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-12 13:50 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-07-12 14:30 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-12 14:40 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-07-15 6:25 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-15 7:24 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-15 9:14 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-15 17:52 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-17 4:26 ` Thierry Reding
2013-07-17 5:14 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-07-17 6:26 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-17 9:11 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-17 9:54 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-15 6:05 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-15 7:29 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-12 7:48 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] hwmon: (lm90) use macro defines for the status bit Wei Ni
2013-07-15 16:57 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-15 17:33 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-10-30 15:33 ` Jean Delvare
2013-10-30 16:11 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-10-30 16:56 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-07-17 7:03 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-17 7:09 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-17 8:28 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-17 9:29 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-17 9:46 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-12 7:48 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] hwmon: (lm90) add support to handle IRQ Wei Ni
2013-07-18 15:58 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-19 6:41 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-24 7:46 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-24 8:08 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-27 15:02 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-29 10:14 ` Wei Ni
2013-07-29 15:58 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-30 8:18 ` Wei Ni
2013-09-16 12:34 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-12 7:48 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] hwmon: (lm90) use enums for the indexes of temp8 and temp11 Wei Ni
2013-07-27 15:38 ` Jean Delvare
2013-07-29 11:15 ` Wei Ni [this message]
2013-07-29 15:48 ` Jean Delvare
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51F64EC0.800@nvidia.com \
--to=wni@nvidia.com \
--cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).