On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:12:08AM -0700, Philip Pokorny wrote: > I didn't think drivers you hadn't converted were in the 2.5 tree. > > If you're asking for a sysfs converted version of the lm85 driver, I'd like > to, but I don't have the time right now. Oops, sorry, I got that one mixed up with the it87 driver. You are correct, the lm85 driver isn't in 2.5 yet. > I have been doing research into sysfs and sub-directories and alternate > implementations of sysfs support. > > Some observations: > > 1. The sysfs documentation implies that you *can* group multiple things > into a single sysfs attribute. So we could create attributes like: > > temp > temp_min > temp_max > fan > fan_min > > That would contain lists of the relavent values (temp1, temp2, temp3 or > temp1_min, temp2_min, temp3_min, etc...) This would reduce the number of > attributes at the expense of a more complicated attribute function. Yes, but doing a write would be difficult too. I suggest just sticking with the current one value per file. It makes things a lot easier for userspace that way. > With regard to sub-directories, the sysfs implementation makes > sub-directories both easy and hard. There is upcoming support for the driver model to make subdirectories much easier to create and handle. This has been a known problem for a while. > I'm worried about the libsensors implementation for 2.5/2.6. The switch to > sysfs will mean a radical change to the libsensors implementation. This > may be a good time to address a number of issues (duplicated code in > libsensors and prog/sensors, inflexible formating, integration of > sensord/rrdb, etc) if we have to do a major re-write of the libsensors and > sensors code. Has anyone given any thought to this? I've looked at this, and agree, a radical change to the libsensors implementation seems to be in order. I haven't spent any serious time yet on this, but will have the time after 2.6.0 comes out. > ****** > But if the lm85 code is already in the 2.5 tree and I need to do a seperate > diff against that code, I'd be happy to do that if I can do that diff > against the bitkeeper cvs copy... Heh :) thanks, and again, sorry for mixing up the driver names... greg k-h
