> > > mutex_lock(&tdata->update_lock); > > > @@ -445,7 +441,6 @@ static int create_core_attrs(struct temp_data > > > *tdata, struct device *dev, > > > tdata->sd_attrs[i].dev_attr.attr.name = tdata- > > > >attr_name[i]; > > > tdata->sd_attrs[i].dev_attr.attr.mode = 0444; > > > tdata->sd_attrs[i].dev_attr.show = rd_ptr[i]; > > > - tdata->sd_attrs[i].index = attr_no; > > > > I was naively thinking if we could nuke that "index". I can see > > that used > > in couple macros, but seems like we can lose it? > > > > Completely untested.. and uncertain :-) > > > > If you had suggested to replace > struct sensor_device_attribute sd_attrs[TOTAL_ATTRS]; > with > struct device_attribute sd_attrs[TOTAL_ATTRS]; > what you suggested may actually be possible and make sense. Too late for me today. Let me check if I can convert it to use device_attribute instead tomorrow. thanks, rui
