Hi!

> > > Rather some dev_warn()? Do we need stack trace here?
> > 
> > I don't see what is wrong with WARN(). These are not expected to
> > trigger, if they do we'll fix it. If you feel strongly about this,
> > feel free to suggest a patch.
> 
> One thing is consistency with other parts of code... On all other places
> is used dev_warn and on above 4 places WARN. dev_warn automatically adds
> device name for easy debugging...
> 
> Another thing is that above WARNs do not write why it is warning. It
> just write that some condition is not truth...

As I said, I believe it is fine as is.

> > > It was me who copied these sensors settings to kernel driver. And I
> > > chose only Stingray as this is what was needed for my N900 for
> > > testing... Btw, you could add somewhere my and Ivo's Signed-off and
> > > copyright state as we both modified et8ek8.c code...
> > 
> > Normally, people add copyrights when they modify the code. If you want
> > to do it now, please send me a patch. (With those warn_ons too, if you
> > care, but I think the code is fine as is).
> 
> I think sending patch in unified diff format for such change is
> overkill. Just place to header it.

Then the change does not happen. Sorry, I do not know what you
modified and when, and if it is copyrightable.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html