On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 16:51 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 15:08 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > But positive dBm is not even possible to represnt right now. It is > > > u8 and is displayed as ((s32)level - 256); so it is *always* > > > negative. > > I would force dBm to be between -192 and 63. That would cover > everything even remotely possible. > > > And what is your perspective regarding potential 'userland ABI' > > issues of either this patch or of Pavel's suggestion? > > In my opinion, discrepancy between procfs and sysfs is permissible. If > the sysfs interface has been wrong, we should be able to change the > format. As for the procfs interface, it could be deprecated. Actually, I was hoping to deprecate the sysfs interface, there are tons of apps relying on procfs unfortunately and very few, if any, relying on sysfs. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
