I looked back and saw that I wrote smartbatt.c almost a year ago, not
two months ago :) !
Since you've obviously tested it and I never did I can't really argue
with
anything you did, other than your change from normal_i2c to
normal_i2c_range is
not correct. _range is used only for ranges (pairs of addresses).
And of course prog/sensors/xxx needs work :)
jklaas wrote:
>
> Here's my patch against the CVS from August 19. I ran patch on this file
> agains the today's CVS (from about 10-15 minutes ago) and it didn't
> complain (aside from some offsets). I would also welcome any comments
> about my coding capability and style.
>
> =======================================================================
>
> diff -u2 -r lm_sensors2.old/kernel/chips/smartbatt.c lm_sensors2.new/kernel/chips/smartbatt.c
> --- lm_sensors2.old/kernel/chips/smartbatt.c 2003-06-22 19:55:05.000000000 +0200
> +++ lm_sensors2.new/kernel/chips/smartbatt.c 2003-08-22 16:20:03.000000000 +0200
> @@ -34,6 +34,6 @@
>
> /* Addresses to scan */
> -static unsigned short normal_i2c[] = { 0x0b, SENSORS_I2C_END };
> -static unsigned short normal_i2c_range[] = { SENSORS_I2C_END };
> +static unsigned short normal_i2c[] = { SENSORS_I2C_END };
> +static unsigned short normal_i2c_range[] = { 0x0b, SENSORS_I2C_END };
> static unsigned int normal_isa[] = { SENSORS_ISA_END };
> static unsigned int normal_isa_range[] = { SENSORS_ISA_END };
