> > I will, but I prefer to make sure the driver works OK before that. > > And also, it is a minimalistic driver for now (doesn't handle > > alarms, alarms mask and so on) so maybe it would be better to > > enhance it on the 2.4 side and port it later to 2.5 than the > > contrary. > > Why? 2.5 can have minimal drivers :) OK, I agree. I can port my driver to 2.5 before adding new features, you're right. > And it will get better coverage than the sensors cvs tree I bet... Well, the CVS tree is to become release 2.8.0 soon, so the driver should have a chance to get tested. Second, I don't have a working 2.5 kernel here, so I wouldn't be able to make sure my driver even compiles (not to say loads). I'll try to build a 2.5 kernel on one of my machines. Is there anything special required (gcc, binutils, modutils?) Last time I tried 2.5 I couldn't even compile it (I even wonder if I managed configuring it at all.) What I really would like right now is a preliminary test of my driver. Zoleg, do you read us? After all, you're the one who asked for the driver, so it would be only fair that you would test it now :) -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
