Juerg Haefliger wrote: > 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 > +1, Hans > > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > lm-sensors mailing list > lm-sensors at lm-sensors.org > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors >
