On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 02:26:41 PM Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On 23-08-2013 19:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 23, 2013 06:03:14 PM Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >> When registering a new thermal_device, the thermal framework
> >> will always add a hwmon sysfs interface.
> >>
> >> This patch adds a flag to make this behavior optional. Now
> >> when registering a new thermal device, the caller needs
> >> to say if the hwmon interface is required.
> >>
> >> In order to keep same behavior as of today, all current
> >> calls will by default create the hwmon interface.
> >
> > Well, instead of modifying all of the callers this way, why don't
> > you add new versions taking the additional argument as, for example,
> >
> > thermal_zone_device_register_full()
> >
> > and redefine the old ones as static inline wrappers, for example
> >
> > static inline struct thermal_zone_device *thermal_zone_device_register(args)
> > {
> > return thermal_zone_device_register_full(args, true);
> > }
> >
> > ?
>
> Yeah, that is another way to go and I thought of doing it like that. I
> just could not come out with a good API naming:
>
> thermal_zone_device_register_full(all args)
>
> thermal_zone_device_register(args) /* on hwmon == true */
> thermal_zone_device_register_no_hwmon(args) /* on hwmon == false */
>
> Would this sound reasonable naming?
Yeah, sounds good to me.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
