From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752509Ab0INLrK (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:47:10 -0400 Received: from zone0.gcu-squad.org ([212.85.147.21]:17829 "EHLO services.gcu-squad.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751332Ab0INLrI (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:47:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:46:59 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH v2 5/7] hwmon: (lm90) Introduce 3rd set of upper temperature limits Message-ID: <20100914134659.5a9e72df@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20100914125137.0928875b@hyperion.delvare> References: <1284038750-8833-1-git-send-email-guenter.roeck@ericsson.com> <1284038750-8833-6-git-send-email-guenter.roeck@ericsson.com> <20100914125137.0928875b@hyperion.delvare> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.14.4; i586-suse-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:51:37 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 06:25:48 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > @@ -818,6 +839,9 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_client *new_client, > > > > static void lm90_remove_files(struct i2c_client *client, struct lm90_data *data) > > { > > + if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_EMERGENCY) > > + sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, > > + &lm90_emergency_group); > > if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_OFFSET) > > device_remove_file(&client->dev, > > &sensor_dev_attr_temp2_offset.dev_attr); > > But this flag is never set? Oh, I get it now, it's set in the next patch. That's not OK, each patch should do something useful in its own right. This suggests that you have to swap patches 5/7 and 6/7 in the series, first adding a separate type for the MAX6659, then adding support for the emergency limits. Or if this is too much work for you, you may decide to merge both patches (hint: "quilt fold" is quite helpful for this, if you're using quilt). -- Jean Delvare From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:46:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH v2 5/7] hwmon: (lm90) Introduce 3rd set of Message-Id: <20100914134659.5a9e72df@hyperion.delvare> List-Id: References: <1284038750-8833-1-git-send-email-guenter.roeck@ericsson.com> <1284038750-8833-6-git-send-email-guenter.roeck@ericsson.com> <20100914125137.0928875b@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20100914125137.0928875b@hyperion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:51:37 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 06:25:48 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > @@ -818,6 +839,9 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_client *new_client, > > > > static void lm90_remove_files(struct i2c_client *client, struct lm90_data *data) > > { > > + if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_EMERGENCY) > > + sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, > > + &lm90_emergency_group); > > if (data->flags & LM90_HAVE_OFFSET) > > device_remove_file(&client->dev, > > &sensor_dev_attr_temp2_offset.dev_attr); > > But this flag is never set? Oh, I get it now, it's set in the next patch. That's not OK, each patch should do something useful in its own right. This suggests that you have to swap patches 5/7 and 6/7 in the series, first adding a separate type for the MAX6659, then adding support for the emergency limits. Or if this is too much work for you, you may decide to merge both patches (hint: "quilt fold" is quite helpful for this, if you're using quilt). -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors