According to "Mark M. Hoffman" <mhoffman at lightlink.com>: > (trimmed distribution since I don't have much to add...) Well, since you seem to agree with my proposal, you could distribute to everyone ;)) More seriously, since the LKML was the primary target, CC'ing them would have make sense IMHO. Anyway... > > I plan to make rather important changes to the sysfs interface of > > I2C > > Gkrellm might be annoyed, but I better let them speak for > themselves. Sure they will blame me and curse me with some voodoo spell, at their first reaction at least. Probably as much as I blame them for not using libsensors. But in the end, I guess they will enjoy the change since it precisely should help them be able to leave without libsensors and still display correct values to their users (providing the are able to parse /etc/sensors.conf by themselves, or have their own, similar configuration file. > This proposal looks good to me. Have you already started the > patches? Yes. Greg wants it to be done as soon as possible in the 2.6.4 kernel life cycle. > Are there any you would like me to do? There isn't much to do. Each driver (but eeprom) has to be converted. This is a repetitive but easy job. Then some changes to the library and doc, and we're done. I think I can handle that. Where I will appreciate your help (and other's...) is for patches review and testing. I will be able to test 2 drivers only, ideally we would want to test them all. Thanks. -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
