> let me try again.
> They already have 2.4 support, right?
Ja ja ;)
> In that case, for every sysfs entry that is "non-standard"
> (i.e. not covered by the conversion routine getsysname() in
> lib/proc.c), add the name of the sysfs entry at the end of the entry
> in lib/chips.c. If the magnitude is non-standard, add it as well.
The amazing thing is that all entries *have* standard names:
alarms
temp_crit1
temp_crit2
temp_input1
temp_input2
temp_max1
temp_max2
temp_min1
temp_min2
So I would have expected everyting to work out of the box - but it
doesn't. Any clue where I should start digging?
A few random notes BTW:
* I think there's a typo at lib/proc.h:438.
* What's the reason for doing:
if(sscanf(name, "temp%d_ove%c%c", &num, &last, &check) == 2
&& last =='r')
instead of
if(sscanf(name, "temp%d_over%c", &num, &check) == 2)
? I understand that you want to make sure that there's nothing after
"other" with the &check trick, but I don't see why you would also need
the &last trick for this. Anything obvious I'm missing?
* I'm seeing a strange behavior with the eeprom module for on my Vaio
(i.e. non-memory) eeprom. Usually sensors will say "Memory type:
Unavailable" (it's obviously not noticing this isn't a regular memory
eeprom). But it sometimes will succeed and print the expected,
vaio-specific data. I didn't investigate any further, but there must be
a bug hiding somewhere.
--
Jean Delvare
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
