Hi Alexey, > Maybe you should call sis5595_update_device() in initialization function > and get rid of "value" field. It's sole purpose to fill "struct sis5595" > when it's known that "last_updated" field contains crap. I assume you meant "valid" field. Doesn't work. If you discard the "valid" field and call the update function at init time, you cannot be sure that the update function will actually do something. It all depends on the jiffies value relative to last_updated (0 at this point). This is exactly what "valid" is there for. An alternative is to add a parameter to the update function, that would force the update to happen regardless of time consideration. This doesn't really change anything though, you simply remove a structure member and replace it with a function parameter. How does it help? Third possibility would be to initialize "last_updated" to anything less than jiffies-(HZ+HZ/2) at init time, so as to be sure that the next update will occur. Is it doable? Or maybe if we initialize "last_updated" to the max possible jiffies count, it'll have the same effect. But is it doable? At any rate, the exact same issue exists in every over existing hardware monitoring driver. If we change our mind we'll do it for all drivers, not only this new one (sis5595), so Aurelien's patch is fine with me. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare
