On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:03:12 +0200 (CEST), lm-sensors-notify at lm-sensors.org wrote: > Author: jwrdegoede > Date: Thu Jul 5 23:03:06 2007 > New Revision: 4559 > Changeset: http://lm-sensors.org/changeset/4559 > > Modified: > lm-sensors/branches/lm-sensors-3.0.0/prog/sensors/chips.c > lm-sensors/branches/lm-sensors-3.0.0/prog/sensors/chips_generic.c > > Log: > Better generic print fault handling OK, it works (tested with an ADM1032 in both degrees C and F) but I can't say I find using HUGE_VAL particularly aesthetic. I have to admit that this was certainly the quickest way to implement proper temperature fault handling without changing the temp_print_info() signature. But OTOH, temp_print_info() is only called once, so changing its signature wouldn't be a big problem. I guess that the main problem here is that we have an artificial split of temp_print_info() outside of the generic temperature printing function, while we shouldn't. This explains in part why the this generic temperature printing function doesn't look quite good. This is something that can be fixed later on though, so I won't be working on it now. So I've created a new milestone in trac (3.0.1), and I've created ticket #2231 for this. Oh, and I also created new components "sensors" and "libsensors" for trac tickets. The component list we had so far didn't make much sense to me, I never know what to choose. -- Jean Delvare
