Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:36:47 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hans-J?rgen Koch wrote: >>> Am Sonntag 08 April 2007 15:51 schrieb Hans de Goede: >>> >>>> The abituguru3 has a register which contains a motherboard ID. The current >>>> driver uses this ID, to look up info about the motherboard in a somewhat >>>> lenght table in the driver. >>> Can you elaborate your design decision a bit? My first idea would be to have >>> a sysfs file that delivers that motherboard ID and then do the lookup in >>> user space. > > I guess that the motherboard ID can be retrieved in user-space using > dmidecode, can't it? So it might not even be needed to export it. > >> As I don't want the abituguru3 driver to create entries in sysfs for sensors >> which aren't there, and as without the table in the driver I cannot be sure >> wether to create an in / temp / fan device for a given sensor address. Last but >> not least doing things this way allows me to always give a proper reading >> without userspace needing to "guess" any further nescesarry calculations to get >> from the reading to an actual measurement. > > This is absolutely not different from all other hardware monitoring > drivers. And all other drivers handle it in user-space, because that's > the right design. I see no valid reason why it would be different for > your abituguru3 driver. All you need is one configuration file per > motherboard. > Oh and yet another thing, since when should all conversions be done in userspace? I did exactly that with the abituguru 1/2 driver and there I had to change it to give the return the actual pin values in Volts and not register values, iow do the conversion in the driver. You are contradicting yourself! Sorry, but I'm pissed about this you're bashing a driver at which you haven't even looked, even though it has been submitted for review in Januari! Then I asked if it was a good idea if I would exchange reviews with Juerg and his DME1737 driver, if that was ok with you. I _explictly_ asked this, and then after the review and a new version was posted by Juerg, you said that you would still have to review it yourself. What was the fricking point then in me reviewing it in the first place? Why did you think I asked if it was ok for others to review drivers?? I asked because I already was afraid that you would not accept reviews done by others, and tada you don't! This attitude is (needlessly) slowing down lmsensors development, and might very well be one of the reasons why there hardly is a development community surrounding lmsensors. Regards, Hans
