the sensors mailing list is the one. Phil please sign Yani up. Yani Ioannou wrote: > Wow.. and I thought allowing for 50 sensors was over cautious. Yes, > dynamic callbacks would be much more scalable (nevermind easier to code, > and less of an eye-sore), but we can't bypass the device.h > implementation if only for the kobj hiearchy. I can't imagine why the > device sysfs callbacks don't pass information on the file they pertain > to, like the base sysfs callbacks, I can only think there must be a good > reason, or something I'm missing. > > I'll get about to changing the naming when I get time, it won't take > much to change, on the dynamic generation of sysfs entries however I > could do with all the help I can get :-) > > I suppose I really should subscribe to the relevant mailing list, but is > that the lm_sensors or kernel one? > > Thanks, > Yani > > Mark Studebaker wrote: > >> thanks for the submission. >> hopefully you can figure out a way to generate the sysfs entries >> dynamically. >> The static generation is unfortunate. Perhaps Greg could help us here. >> Also I got mail from one person who had 70 sensors on his BMC. >> >> I'm not running 2.6 on my BMC machine but I may try to backport the >> write code >> and test it on 2.4. >> >> We've recently changed the sysfs naming convention (from temp_min1 to >> temp1_min, >> for example), so we'll need the naming reworked. >> >> mds > > >
