On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:03:01PM -0400, Mark M. Hoffman wrote: > Hello: > > * Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> [2004-07-05 16:49:45 +0200]: > > <snip> > > > It looks like the possibility to select more than one temp channel for a > > given fan controler is needed (Philip Pokorny), so we wouldn't simplify > > this. As in the first proposal, the values would be bitfields, 1<<N == > > temp channel N matters to compute the considered fan's speed. > > > > Files : > > > > fan1_auto_channels > > fan2_auto_channels > > <snip> > > I think these should be named e.g. pwm1_auto_channels to make clear > the distinction between a tacho input (fanX) and a pwm output (pwmX). > > (/me goes off to look at 2.6 sysfs_interface doc again) > > Oh dear. I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention to this sooner, but I > think our interface needs revision again. All of the fan[nr]_pwm* > files should really just be pwm[nr]*. > > The association between tacho input and pwm output is arbitrary and > depends on mainboard maker. E.g. our script prog/pwm/pwmconfig is > made to discover the relationships. > > Would anyone object to such a patch for 2.6 kernel drivers? I'll let you and Jean argue this out :) > Any patch to the 2.6 kernel which changes/breaks some part of the > documented sysfs interface must be accompanied by a patch to > libsensors. The libsensors patch must preserve backwards compat. > to the sysfs interface as it existed in every kernel.org kernel > from 2.6.5-rc1 to present. That sounds good to me. thanks, greg k-h
