On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:35:30PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote: > > Jean Delvare wrote: > >Hi Jim, > > > > > hi ! > > BTW - are you considering these as 18 bugfix material, or are they > "long standing sub-optimalities" for 19 when it opens ? (ie when 18 is out) > > Obviously (from the experimentalism in my patches), Ive been treating it > as 19 stuff ;-) > Apologies for making this more *in-need-of-feedback* than it has to be, > but I guess I cant quite resist.. > > > > >Now I agree that, even then, we probably will never see two > of the same kind of (not that the distinction matters here..) > >Super-I/O > >chip on the same board, so that's not really an issue. > > > > > > Um.. I just looked at asb100.c, and Im seeing static decls like: > static DEVICE_ATTR(..) > > Unless Im misunderstanding something, this is sufficient to preclude > supporting a 2nd device. > IOW, to support multiple devices, drivers would need to create > attributes, groups, etc out of > kalloc'd memory, sacrificing the (heavy) use of static initialization in > hwmon/*.c No, you are incorrect, it will work just fine. The dynamic thing is the struct device, not the functions that make up the file callbacks. thanks, greg k-h
