On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:56:56 -0600, Jim Cromie wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > > Thinking about it some more, I found 2 problems with your patch: > > > > * It breaks the ams driver: > > $ grep -r CONFIG_SENSORS drivers/hwmon/ams > > drivers/hwmon/ams/ams-core.c:#ifdef CONFIG_SENSORS_AMS_I2C > > drivers/hwmon/ams/ams-core.c:#ifdef CONFIG_SENSORS_AMS_PMU > > drivers/hwmon/ams/Makefile:ams-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_AMS_PMU) += ams-pmu.o > > drivers/hwmon/ams/Makefile:ams-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_AMS_I2C) += ams-i2c.o > > drivers/hwmon/ams/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_AMS) += ams.o > > drivers/hwmon/ams/ams.h:#ifdef CONFIG_SENSORS_AMS_I2C > > > > You need to update these too. > > > > * It breaks a lot of default configurations: > > $ quilt grep CONFIG_SENSORS arch | wc -l > > 2729 > > A number of these are for the drivers/i2c/chips part of your patch. > > > > So this will be a much bigger patch than you originally posted. > > Does the size (and the default config breakage!) change anything from > your ends ? > the patch is easy to do ( perl -pi.bak -e 's/SENSORS_/HWMON_/'), > and easy to test (make allmodconfig - I didnt do this before, sorry) > but its not clear that its value-in-clarity is worth the churn (seen by > everyone who builds) Admittedly, this becomes much bigger than I initially thought, so I'm a bit hesitant now. I think it's still worth it for the i2c/chips part, because there, we're calling SENSORS devices which aren't and this is confusing; and the count is lower. For HWMON vs. SENSORS, it can be confusing but at least it's not plain wrong - so I'd say leave it alone. But this is just my feeling of the moment. If others feel more strongly one direction or the other, I won't insist either way. -- Jean Delvare
