Hi Jean, Jim: * Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> [2005-12-10 11:21:34 +0100]: > So it's great that you come back to me on that topic now. My version > has shorter names and a few cosmetic changes. It's in my local stack : > > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/i2c/linux-2.6/hwmon-allow-sensor-attr-arrays.patch > > But I did not send it to Greg for integration yet. I was waiting for > some ack from you or others, and for a driver actually using the added > possibility. Although I haven't been involved in the macro cleanup and conversion work up to this point... a long time ago I complained that the sysfs inits make the hwmon drivers much bigger than they need to be. Anyway, thanks for working on this stuff; and that patch looks OK to me. [...] > I am working on similar changes on a different driver myself. This > driver (f71805f) I have not released yet because it is implemented as a > platform driver and there are still some changes needed to the core > part for it to work properly. You may take a look at it here though: > > http://jdelvare.net2.nerim.net/sensors/hwmon-f71805f-new-driver.patch > > This initial version uses the old individual attribute file > registration approach. From there, there are two possibilities to get > the attributes registered as groups: > > 1* Using sysfs_create_group(), as Greg KH suggested. This doesn't need > any preliminary patch. The patch is here: > > http://jdelvare.net2.nerim.net/sensors/hwmon-f71805f-sysfs-group.patch > > 2* Using arrays of attributes and looping over them, as you proposed > for the pc87360 driver. This needs the preliminary hwmon-sysfs.h patch. > The patch is here: > > http://jdelvare.net2.nerim.net/sensors/hwmon-f71805f-use-attr-array.patch > > This second patch has my preference as it makes the code significantly > smaller. I don't much like the sysfs_create_group interface because it > forces you to create two additional data structures you otherwise have > no need for. I agree, but I wonder if sysfs_create_group() has benefits on the back end. It's possible that looping over the attributes uses more memory after all. [checks code] No, your second patch has the exact same effect, less one big array and one small one. > I am not totally sure what I want to do here, so hints in either > direction are welcome. Also, in the sysfs-group patch, there was this line... >>> static struct attribute_group attr_group_fan[3] __initdata = { "array of structs containing a pointer to array of pointers to struct attribute" My own preference is to avoid that kind of stuff like the plague. Regards, -- Mark M. Hoffman mhoffman at lightlink.com
