Hi Hans, On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:56:23 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > I noticed that currently the temp code prints a faults in the place where > normally an alarm gets printed, and ignores alarms. I mimicked this for the > fault support I added to the fan code. > > But is this wise, since the reading are bogus when a FAULT is raised, shouldn't > the reading be omitted, just like were omitting the alarm? I agree that the current implementation doesn't make much sense and can be confusing to the users. The "FAULT" statement should replace the (invalid) measured value rather than the ALARM flag. Can you please propose a patch doing this? Thanks, -- Jean Delvare
