For no longer than the /proc standard is going to last (sysfs anyone) I think it would be much better to have a "dummy" value. :v) Mark D. Studebaker wrote: > looks good. > A couple of things I may have done differently - > but that doesn't make the way you did it wrong :) > > - You could have done one /proc callback function rather than 4 > - This is our first chip without two limits per sensor. To maintain our > /proc standard for temps we would need a 'dummy' second value between > the high limit and the reading. But if National did it, others will too, > so probably better to add to our /proc standard to say it could > be two values instead of three. Interesting. > > > Jean Delvare wrote: > >> If anyone could take a look at my code for the LM83, I'd appreciate it. >> This is my first driver, as you must know. I followed the guidelines in >> doc/developers/new_drivers, tried to follow the coding standards, but I >> may have missed a few things. >> >> I propose the following changes to new_drivers file: >> >> - Change the recommended driver to use as a template. The writer should >> use the driver that is the more similar to the chip he is writing a >> driver for. I personally used much more the lm75 and adm1021 drivers >> than the recommended lm78. And actually, using two different drivers as >> templates was great. >> >> - Don't ask for testing with 2.2 kernels! Maybe we should add a line >> about sending a 2.5 version (if possible) to Greg KH instead? >> >
