Jean Delvare wrote: > > A few random notes BTW: > > * I think there's a typo at lib/proc.h:438. > ?? you mean proc.c? I assume you fixed it, line numbers moved... > * 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) == 1) > ? 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? > In your example you can't tell if the "_over" part matched or not, can you? I know the way I did it is retarded, I just couldn't think of a better way. Anybody have an elegant way that works, speak up. > * 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. > We're getting good at finding bugs in the bus drivers with eeprom. What bus driver? Any more clues?
