On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:32:14AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 4/25/05, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol at 2ka.mipt.ru> wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 09:31 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > > OK, that is what I am aying. But why do you need that attribute with > > > variable name and a bin attribute that is not really bin but just a > > > dump for all kind of data (looks like debug one). > > > > bin attribute was created for lm_sensors scripts format - it only caches > > read value. > > I think there might be only 2 "must have" methods - read and write. > > I plan to implement them using connector, so probably they will go away > > completely. > ... > > > You will not be able to cram all 1-wire devices into unified > > > interface. You will need to build classes on top of it and you might > > > use connector (I am not sure) bit not on w1 bus level. > > > ... > > > > connector allows to have different objects inside one netlink group, > > so it will use it in that way. > > I think only two w1 methods must exist - read and write, > > and they must follow protocol, defined in family driver. > > No, I think there should not be any "must have" methods on w1_bus > level. What you really need (and this needs to be coordinated with > other sensors people) is a "sensors" class hierarchy that will define > classes like "temperature sensor", "fan", "vid", etc. Then your w1 > family drivers, when bound to a slave, will create needed class > devices. i2c drivers will do the same, and your superio, and I'll be > able to change i8k driver just for kicks. Then your usespace would not > care what _bus_ a particular sensor is sittign on and will be > presented with a unified interface. Yes, that is the way to go, and is what a number of people are currently working on implementing. thanks, greg k-h
