On 31/08/21 3:36 am, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 8/29/21 2:09 PM, Chris Packham wrote: >> >> On 28/08/21 9:29 am, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:41:21PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: >>>> Instead of the non-standard auto_update_interval make use of the >>>> update_interval property that is supported by the hwmon core. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Notes: >>>> I kind of anticipate a NAK on this because it affects the >>>> ABI. But I figured >>>> I'd run it past the ML to see if moving towards the hwmon >>>> core is worth the hit >>>> in ABI compatibility. >>> I personally don't mind (most likely no one is using it anyway), but >>> let's >>> wait until after the upcoming commit window closes to give people >>> time to >>> complain. >> >> I know of one application using this sysfs entry. But it's our in-house >> environmental monitoring code so if this gets merged I'll just update it >> to use the new path. >> >> One thought I had was we could do both. i.e. have an entry that conforms >> to the hwmon core and a backwards compatible entry that just aliases the >> new path. >> > Now you almost convinced me to indeed reject this patch. The idea of > the new API > is to simplify driver code, not to make it more complicated. If we > can't simplify > the code, it is better to leave it alone. Sold. I agree what I've just suggested is adding more complexity without much gain. If something does start to care about having a standard update_interval property we could resurrect this. > > Guenter
