Jean, Personally, I like the short names better. The additional 'input' in the long name doesn't add any value in my opinion. And as you mentioned, using short names would make it consistent with alarms and beeps. ...juerg On 5/25/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > We have the following naming convention documented in > Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface for fault files: > > in[0-*]_input_fault > fan[1-*]_input_fault > temp[1-*]_input_fault > > Some drivers follow this convention (lm63, lm83, lm90, smsc47m192). > However some drivers omit the "input" part and create files named > fan1_fault (pc87427) or temp1_fault (dme1737). And the new "generic" > libsensors follows this second (non-standard) convention, so it fails > to report fault conditions for drivers which follow the standard. > > We need to fix it all up so that we have a single convention and > libsensors uses it. I would fix the drivers which do not follow the > standard, and libsensors, however I start wondering if the short names > aren't better. After all, we don't include the "input" part in alarm > and beep file names, so it is questionable why we do it for fault > conditions. Well, it might make some sense, but on the other hand the > short name isn't ambiguous as far as I can see, so it would work too. > So I just don't know. But what I know is that we must fix it quickly. > Anyone has an opinion on why the long or the short names would be > preferable? > > Thanks, > -- > Jean Delvare > > _______________________________________________ > lm-sensors mailing list > lm-sensors at lm-sensors.org > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors >
