Jean Delvare wrote: > > The procfs files were not meant to be chip-independant at all. There > were simple rules about file names and items orders within the files, > but that was only meant as a help for developers. So there were no > benefit to split alarms over correctly named files. Now this is > completely different. > For what it's worth, I think the /proc interface strived to be chip-independent. The new sysfs interface is certainly more chip-independent, but it's an evolution. We defined standards for /proc. We improved them for sysfs. > > 1* Change the base scheme (temp_min1 -> temp1_min). This is the more > important change. > If you have the energy to do this, fine, but at this point it doesn't seem worth the effort. I don't see how having them grouped alphabetically, for example, is much of a benefit to anybody. > 2* Change the hysteresis names (temp1_hyst -> temp1_max_hyst). Only some > drivers are impacted. Changes required to the library as well. > Any drivers besides lm83 have more than one hyst per sensor? This is needed for the general case but in practice the usefulness is limited. A good idea but low priority. > 3* Add the splitted alarm files. This doesn't break the interface, but > on the other hand needs that we think about it a bit more so that out > choices are extendable and correct for all known drivers. An excellent idea that really expands the information available in a chip-independent manner.
