Hi Alexey, > What about making sis5595_update_device() a simple jiffies-related wrapper > around function that updates "struct sis5595" unconditionally. I'm not sure > I plugged sis5595_do_update_client right, but you'll get the idea. Yeah I get the idea, I think I had something similar in mind some times ago but it failed to please me for the following reasons: 1* It forces a chip update (i.e. full register read) on driver load (or more precisely on client detection). Since I2C/SMBus accesses are really slow, it will result in a significant time penalty. As the read values are only considered valid for 1.5 second (or equivalent duration for the other drivers), this penalty brings statistically no benefit in return. 2* Each subsequent update (or attempt thereof) will conditionally require an additional function call, which represents a small time penalty again (much more than a comparison if I'm not mistaken). We are only trying to avoid a conditional test and to get rid of a local variable, and end up with a much slower init and an additional function call later. The loss seems to overweight the gain, don't you think? So I wouldn't go that way. To me, the only acceptable simplification is the initialization of "last_updated" to something which ensures that the first update attempt will succeed - providing we actually can do that. Now I wonder, this is certainly not the only drivers in the kernel which need to do this, right? Didn't the other ones solve the issue already? Would be worth taking a look. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare
