Hi Juerg, On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:54:55 -0700, Juerg Haefliger wrote: > On 6/25/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote: > > > @@ -931,6 +1029,58 @@ > > > show_pwm_freq, set_pwm_freq, 2); > > > static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm3_mode, S_IRUGO, show_pwm_mode, NULL, 2); > > > > > > +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm1_auto_channels_temp, S_IRUGO, > > > + show_pwm_auto_channels, NULL, 0); > > > +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm2_auto_channels_temp, S_IRUGO, > > > + show_pwm_auto_channels, NULL, 1); > > > +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm3_auto_channels_temp, S_IRUGO, > > > + show_pwm_auto_channels, NULL, 2); > > > +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm1_auto_channels_fan, S_IRUGO, > > > + show_pwm_auto_channels, NULL, 0); > > > +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm2_auto_channels_fan, S_IRUGO, > > > + show_pwm_auto_channels, NULL, 1); > > > +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(pwm3_auto_channels_fan, S_IRUGO, > > > + show_pwm_auto_channels, NULL, 2); > > > > Not sure what others think about this (Mark? Juerg?) but this (pwm1 to > > fan1 and to temp1, etc.) seems to be the usual mapping for chips where > > the mappings can't be changed, so I wonder what's the benefit of > > creating read-only sysfs files to express it. I think I'd be just as > > happy with no channel files at all (and it's cheaper.) No strong > > opinion though. > > I don't find them particularly useful. So we agree. Good. > The static mapping should be > documented in the chip doc. Yes, and they already are. Phil, please exclude the channel sysfs files from the next iteration of your patch. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare
