[lm-sensors] Re: [PATCH 2.6.12-rc5-mm1 3/3] i2c: modify sensors

[greg@kroah.com (Greg KH)]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:00:07AM -0400, Mark M. Hoffman wrote:
> Hi Greg:
> 
> * Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> [2005-06-01 23:13:06 -0700]:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:37:27PM -0400, Mark M. Hoffman wrote:
> > > @@ -37,6 +39,8 @@ static unsigned int normal_isa[] = { I2C
> > >  /* Insmod parameters */
> > >  SENSORS_INSMOD_8(adm1021, adm1023, max1617, max1617a, thmc10, lm84, gl523sm, mc1066);
> > >  
> > > +static int id;	/* increment once for every chip found */
> > > +
> > 
> > You duplicate this logic in every driver.  Is it really needed?  How
> > about having the "bus id" be unique for all hwmon devices?  That way, no
> > id varible is needed, and just the name of the device.  Then, in the
> > hwmon core, you add the unique number to the front of the name.
> > Something like:
> > 	01-adm1021
> > 	02-adm1025
> > and so on.
> > 
> > Any thoughts?
> 
> Yeah, that looks reasonable [1].  Ultimately, libsensors isn't going to care
> about that name; it will grab all the info it needs through the device link.
> It also renders the first patch in the set unnecessary - you can apply that
> seperately if you want it at all.

Well, things are in a quilt tree, so it's quite easy to drop any one
patch if needed.  I'll keep it around for a while, it's a nice function
to have :)

> Again, hold up on sending through to -mm and I'll fix this up.

Heh, the fun thing about -mm release is, we never know when they will
happen...  My stuff is public and Andrew pulls it in when he wants to
update.  As he just released one last night, we might have a day or so
before the next one, so it should be fine.

> [1] I personally prefer more leading zeros, or better yet none at all.

Sure, just an example, use what you want.  More is always nice to keep
things sorted sanely.

thanks,

greg k-h