On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:55:12PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > BTW, don't you think I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SMBUS is a misnomer? It's about > > > hardware monitoring, not the SMBus protocol. I'd say > > > I2C_ADAP_CLASS_HWMON or I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SENSORS would have been more > > > appropriate (although it may be a bit late for a change...) > > > > Yeah, it doesn't make the most sense. Care to propose something that > > does make sense? Or something to just fix this class stuff up all > > together? > > Well, all depends on what we want to do. Renaming I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SMBUS > to anything different means breaking compatibility with older code. > Maybe people outside of the kernel tree already use this define. At > least the rivatv project now does (because of me, admittedly). So > basically, the question is: is the change worth a compatibility change. I don't care at all about "compatibility changes" as we can fix up all of the in-kernel usages. Anyone trying to keep drivers outside of the main kernel tree deserve the pain that this causes :) > It's not very difficult to fix for the "user", and supporting both > defines looks easy, using something as: > > #ifdef I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SMBUS > #ifndef I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SENSORS > #define I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SENSORS I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SMBUS > #endif > #endif > > at the top of the using code. So the renaming option sounds acceptable. Ick, no. Just rename the thing. > My two proposals for a new name are I2C_ADAP_CLASS_HWMON and > I2C_ADAP_CLASS_SENSORS. Either is fine with me too, I don't have any > preference. Or any other with a similar meaning. But what are these "classes" used for exactly? That was my main question. Does anyone really use them? Can we just delete them altogether? thanks, greg k-h
